xiaohongshu_get_work

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the '优质库' (high-quality library) constraint, which implies the tool only returns notes from a curated subset—important for setting agent expectations. It also states the parameter requirement. However, it does not disclose what happens if both ID and link are given, expected format of inputs, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core purpose and parameter requirement. Every word serves a function: it names the action, the target, the scope (优质库), and the essential constraint. There is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 that the tool has only two parameters (neither required in schema), an output schema is present (so return values need not be described), and the complexity is low, the description covers the essential invocation requirements. However, it leaves the term '优质库' undefined—a curious AI agent would not know what qualifies as 'high-quality' or how to interpret results from this library versus the full note set. This slight ambiguity prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by stating the critical constraint that at least one of work_id or work_link must be provided, which the schema alone does not convey (both are optional with null defaults). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw types. However, it omits details like the expected format of work_id or work_link (e.g., URL pattern), preventing a perfect score.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '小红书笔记详情' (Xiaohongshu note details), with the qualifier '优质库' distinguishing it from general notes. The sibling tools include search and other get functions, and this description differentiates by specifying fetching a single note by ID or link, making its purpose distinct.

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 a key constraint: 'work_id 与 work_link 至少传一个', telling the agent that at least one parameter is required. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xiaohongshu_search_articles, nor does it mention when not to use it or what to do if both parameters are provided. Usage is implied but not explicitly contextualized among siblings.

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