toutiao_get_work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '实时' (real-time) which indicates data freshness, but it does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the opus_id is invalid. The description is too sparse to be transparent about behavioral traits.

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 two sentences: one for purpose and one for the parameter definition. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the minimal description is largely sufficient. The real-time qualifier adds context. However, slightly more behavioral depth (e.g., data source guarantee) would enhance 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: 'opus_id 为作品 ID' (opus_id is the work ID). This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's raw type 'string', significantly aiding correct invocation.

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 '获取今日头条作品详情（实时）' which translates to 'Get Toutiao work details (real-time).' The verb 'get' and resource 'work details' are specific, and the platform name 'toutiao' distinguishes it from sibling tools for other platforms like douyin, wechat, etc. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have an opus_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'toutiao_search_works'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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