用户投稿

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 nothing beyond purpose: no note on pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens for a nonexistent/empty account.

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 no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to richness.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It omits usage context and edge-case behavior, but the structured fields carry the invocation details.

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 mid, page, limit, and order are all fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that a user is specified, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('获取指定 UP 主的投稿视频列表'), and '投稿' (uploaded/submitted) meaningfully separates it from siblings like list_favorites or history. However, it never names an alternative tool, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools such as user_info or video_info. The only implied guidance is that a specific user ('指定 UP 主') must be targeted, which is minimal.

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