get_hot_feeds

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 only states what the tool returns (a list of dictionaries) without mentioning critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what 'hot feeds' specifically entail (e.g., popularity-based, time-sensitive). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and a brief return format in the second. There is no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly while still conveying essential information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves network calls and data retrieval. It fails to address authentication needs, error handling, the structure of returned dictionaries, or how 'hot feeds' are defined, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable operation.

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 both parameters (uid, limit) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'hot feeds' means in relation to the uid or how the limit interacts with feed availability. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a Weibo user's hot feeds'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_feeds' or 'get_trendings', which likely retrieve different types of feeds or trending content.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_feeds' (likely general feeds), 'get_trendings' (likely trending topics), and 'search_content' (likely broader searches), the agent has no indication of when 'hot feeds' are appropriate versus other feed types or search methods.

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