发表工单评论

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it only restates the action and the corresponding HTTP method. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or response behavior. The description neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them.

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: one stating the purpose and one mapping to the API. No redundant information is included. Every word serves a purpose, making it easy to read and process.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the annotations are minimal. The description lacks information about return values, success/failure indicators, or any side effects beyond 'posting a comment.' Given the simplicity of the tool, some guidance on expected response or error handling would be valuable but is entirely absent. The description is not complete enough to fully inform an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both required parameters (comment content and work order number), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any further meaning or examples beyond what the schema already states. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (发表/post) and resource (工单/comment under a work order), and includes the API endpoint for reference. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yearning_order_comments, which likely lists comments rather than creating them. The specificity is high, but the lack of explicit sibling distinction keeps it from a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The API mapping (POST /api/v2/fetch/comment) hints at a write operation, but does not tell the agent when to choose this over similar tools like yearning_submit_order or yearning_order_comments. There is no mention of required permissions or typical use cases.

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