mfuns_read_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '读取' (read) and explains comment_depth behavior (1=top-level only, 2=with replies). However, it does not describe the return structure, pagination, error handling, or whether the video details and comments are returned together. This leaves several behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear Args list. Every line conveys necessary information without redundancy or fluff. The parameter list is easy to scan, and the use of defaults is explicitly noted.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and all parameter semantics thoroughly. The only gap is the lack of usage guidelines relative to sibling tools, but for a straightforward read operation with three well-documented parameters, it is nearly 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides detailed meanings for every parameter: video_id as '视频 ID', comment_depth with explicit value semantics (1=top-level, 2=with replies), and comment_limit as the maximum number of comments. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding real value.

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's purpose: '读取视频详情与评论区' (read video details and comments section). It uses a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from siblings like mfuns_read_feed and mfuns_read_thread, which handle different content types. The scope is unambiguous.

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 this tool is for retrieving a specific video's details and comments, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like mfuns_read_feed or mfuns_read_thread. There are no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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