工单评论

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it reads ALL comments for a specified work order, which is useful. It also provides the corresponding WS endpoint. However, it does not disclose additional traits such as pagination, permissions, or response format behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a technical endpoint reference. Every word earns its place, with no redundant content. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple nature (read-only, two parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the action and resource, and annotations cover safety profile. However, it does not mention the response_format parameter's effect on the output (markdown vs json), nor does it describe the structure of the returned comments. These gaps are minor for a straightforward read operation, but a slightly richer description would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (work_id has a description, response_format does not). The description does not compensate for this gap by explaining either parameter. It does not mention that work_id is the work order number or that response_format controls the output format (markdown/json). The endpoint reference is not parameter-related. Overall, the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: '读取指定工单的全部评论' (read all comments for a specified work order). It uses a specific verb ('读取' - read) and identifies the resource ('工单' - work order) and the scope ('全部评论' - all comments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yearning_post_comment (which posts comments) and yearning_order_detail (which likely fetches order details).

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 the tool should be used when a work order's full comment list is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with sibling tools such as yearning_order_timeline. The endpoint reference 'WS /api/v2/fetch/comment' provides technical context but no usage guidance.

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