hupu_news

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '实时数据' implies fresh, current data, it doesn't specify update frequency, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the data returns. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 - just two Chinese phrases separated by a slash. Every element ('实时数据' and '虎扑步行街热榜') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the most critical 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what the tool provides, it doesn't explain the format of the returned data, any limitations or constraints, or how it differs from similar tools. For a data-fetching tool with no structured metadata, more context about the output would be valuable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 '实时数据/虎扑步行街热榜' clearly states the tool's purpose: providing real-time data from the Hupu Buxingjie hot list. It specifies both the resource (虎扑步行街热榜) and the type of data (实时数据), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hupu_a_news', leaving room for confusion about the specific scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'hupu_a_news' and other news sources, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over others. The user must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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