MK 讨论回帖

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the side effect that only a real reply marks the discussion complete, the DWR transport, and an explicit anti-burst pacing expectation. It omits auth/prerequisite state (implied by the sibling login tools) and says nothing about the response or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action, then layers constraints (content quality, completion semantics, pacing). Dense but well ordered; the pacing sentence is long but each clause carries real instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, content requirements, side effects on discussion completion, and rate pacing. Missing only return-value expectations and the meaning of the anonymous flag.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so postId, text and pauseBeforeMs are already described. The description reinforces text semantics (must be self-authored, on-topic) and clarifies pauseBeforeMs as an internal wait, but the 'anonymous' parameter is documented nowhere in schema or description. Baseline 3 fits given the schema does most of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: posting a reply inside a discussion unit, and even names the underlying endpoint (MocForumBean.addReply, DWR). No sibling tool shares this responsibility, so an agent can immediately tell this is the write action for discussion threads.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage rules: text must be authored by the agent and topic-relevant, no templates or placeholders, and batch posting should be paced with a self-managed sleep (30s±10s Gaussian) or via pauseBeforeMs. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, but for a single-purpose write tool the guidance is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.