xhs_user_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return includes 'content portfolio with engagement metrics', which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior or that 'all' notes may require multiple calls via the cursor parameter. This is a minor transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a use case. There is no unnecessary verbiage or repetition; every word adds value.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It describes the return content (notes with metrics) and mentions a use case. The lack of explicit pagination instructions is a minor gap, but the schema covers it, and the tool is not highly complex.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (user_id and cursor) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already says, just confirming the resource is a specific user. Since schema coverage is high, a 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 action ('Get all published notes') and the target resource ('a specific Xiaohongshu user'), which is precise and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xhs_user_profile (profile info) and xhs_note_detail (single note), making its purpose unique.

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 a clear use case ('analyzing a creator's content strategy') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It offers implied guidance for when this tool is appropriate, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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