mfuns_read_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the behavior of comment_depth and comment_limit parameters well, but does not disclose other traits such as return format, authentication requirements, or pagination details. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and usage context, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence is informative, with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already covered. The description covers purpose, usage, and all parameters thoroughly. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a straightforward read tool, this is reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: article_id, comment_depth with its two levels, and comment_limit with default. This adds essential meaning beyond the typed 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 post details and comments, and identifies it as the most commonly used read tool and a must-read before replying. This specific verb+resource distinction separates it from siblings like mfuns_read_video and mfuns_read_feed.

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 phrase '回复前必读' (must read before replying) gives a clear context for when to use this tool, and '最常用的读取工具' (most commonly used read tool) implies it is the default choice for reading. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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