campus_channel_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the source URL, ranking formula, automatic categorization, Markdown output, and source attribution. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but the core behavior is clearly described.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the fetch action, source, ranking, categorization, and output format. Every clause is relevant, though a more structured breakdown of parameters would improve readability.

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 output schema covers return structure, and the description explains source, ranking, categories, and citations. However, with five parameters and no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus siblings, the description is not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Terms like 'top_n' and 'window_hours' are only indirectly related to '热度榜' and '近期帖子', while max_posts, comment_top_n, and include_comments receive no clarification.

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 states a specific action: fetch recent posts from a named QQ channel, rank them by likes+comments, categorize them into seven types, and output a Markdown summary with source links. It clearly identifies the resource and unique behavior, distinguishing it from a plain recent-posts or search tool.

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 this tool is for obtaining a ranked, categorized summary of QQ-channel posts rather than raw retrieval or search. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or describe exclusions.

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