mfuns_read_feed

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 adds behavioral context by explaining how comment_depth controls the hierarchy (1 vs 2) and how comment_limit caps the number of comments. The read operation is implied non-destructive, though it does not state error handling or permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args list with clear explanations. No redundant or irrelevant information, and every sentence earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a simple read operation: it states the purpose and explains all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines (e.g., when to prefer this over siblings) and does not mention edge cases like invalid feed_id, which would make it 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 compensates fully by explaining all three parameters in detail: feed_id is the feed ID, comment_depth specifies the comment nesting level with defaults, and comment_limit caps the returned comments with a default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool reads feed details and comments with a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('动态详情与评论区'). It is unambiguous and matches the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like mfuns_read_thread or mfuns_read_video.

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 usage by explaining the parameters (comment_depth, comment_limit), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied from the operation name and description.

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