相关推荐（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 profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing on top of that – it restates 'read' without disclosing return format, whether recommendations are personalized/authenticated, or pagination behavior, which is minimal context for the tool.

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 well-formed sentence with no waste and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though extremely sparse relative to what a stronger definition could carry.

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?

This is a simple read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile. The one-line description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no statement of return shape beyond '列表', there's a small gap in completeness.

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 the schema already documents both 'video' (BV/av/link formats with examples) and 'limit' (1-50 range). The description repeats none of this and adds no syntax or format detail, 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 and resource ('读取某个视频的相关推荐列表' – read the related-recommendation list for a given video), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is largely distinguishable from siblings like video_info or search, but the text never names or contrasts a sibling, so it stops 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, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With siblings such as video_info and search that could plausibly surface recommendation-style content, some disambiguation was warranted and is absent.

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