视频评论

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 usefully enumerates returned fields (comment content, author, like count, partial replies), but says nothing about rate limits, pagination behavior, or reply completeness beyond '部分'.

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 compact sentence with zero redundancy, and the key capability (reading the comment section) is front-loaded. It packs scope and return fields efficiently, though brevity leaves gaps elsewhere.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming what is returned (content, author, like count, partial replies). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient, missing only reply-truncation/rate-limit detail.

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, page, sort, and video are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely echoes the sort enum ('热门或按时间') without adding syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (视频评论区/video comment section) plus the sort modes and returned fields. The read verb implicitly distinguishes it from the write sibling post_comment, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The description mentions the two modes (热门 hot / 按时间 by time) but gives no guidance on when to prefer one, no exclusions, and no routing away from alternatives like post_comment. Usage is only implied.

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