粉丝列表（扩展）

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and data-scope profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the target user is private or inaccessible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, well sized for a simple list tool. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return shape and pagination expectations, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so ps ('每页 1-50'), mid ('用户 UID'), and page ('页码') are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely echoes the mid parameter ('指定用户') and adds no format or constraint details beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('获取...粉丝列表') with a clear scope modifier ('当前账号或指定用户'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_followings implicitly through the resource name, but never explicitly names or contrasts the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_followings. The only usage hint ('或指定用户') maps to the schema's mid parameter rather than routing the agent between tools.

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