xitu_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. It mentions '实时数据' (real-time data), implying freshness, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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—and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place by specifying the data type and source without any wasted text.

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 incomplete. It identifies the data source but doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., list format, fields), how often it updates, or any usage constraints. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist and the schema fully covers this.

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/稀土掘金热榜' clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides real-time data from the Juejin (稀土掘金) hot list. The verb '实时数据' (real-time data) and resource '稀土掘金热榜' (Juejin hot list) are specific, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also provide news/trend data from other platforms.

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 16 sibling tools for various news sources (e.g., weibo_news, zhihu_news), there is no indication that this tool is specifically for Juejin content versus other platforms, nor any context about when Juejin data would be preferred.

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