zhihu_content

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'pageable normalized document' behavior, which sets expectations about pagination and normalization beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail max_chars handling.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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?

With an output schema and clear annotations, the description does not need to enumerate return values. It covers the resource scope and output type, and for a simple read-only tool, it provides adequate context. Minor gap: pagination mechanics are not fully explained.

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 does not explain either parameter. The name 'max_chars' hints at a character limit but its interaction with pagination is unclear, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the name alone.

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 a Zhihu question, answer, or article and returns a pageable normalized document. This uses a specific verb and resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like zhihu_search or browser_read.

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 for reading Zhihu content directly, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like browser_read or zhihu_search. It does not mention exclusions or conditions for use.

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