xhs_get_credits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only query ('查询') of the current account's credit balance, which communicates the core behavioral trait of a safe, non-mutating operation. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a simple balance query this is adequate.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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?

For a zero-parameter, simple balance query, the description is largely complete: it gives the subject, scope, and action. The only minor gap is the lack of a stated return format or unit, but the tool name and description together are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately references '当前账户' (current account) as the implicit scope, and there are no parameter details left unexplained.

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 specific operation (查询/query) and resource (当前账户的 credit 余额), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is also distinct from its siblings, xhs_generate_cover and xhs_get_history, which clearly have different functions.

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 purpose implies that this tool is used to check credit availability before consuming operations, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or when to prefer an alternative. While the siblings are self-evidently different, no explicit routing or contextual guidance is provided.

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