get_comments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns: list[dict]: List of dictionaries containing comments,' which gives some output context, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, but it's still efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, error cases, or how it differs from siblings. Without an output schema, more explanation of the return structure would be helpful, but it's minimally adequate.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('feed_id' as the Weibo post identifier and 'page' for pagination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comments for a specific Weibo post.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a Weibo post'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feeds' or 'search_content', which might also retrieve post-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_feeds' (which might retrieve posts) or 'search_content' (which might include comments), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual usage information leaves the agent without clear direction.

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