get_comments

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

无注解，描述承担了行为透明度的全部责任。它揭露了自动分页行为（必须保持参数并继续调用直到满足数量或无更多结果），并提示count是单页数量而非总数。虽未涉及限流、授权或错误处理，但核心行为已较清楚。

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?

描述由三句话组成，第一句直述目的，第二句给出分页规则，第三句给出平台差异。每句信息密度高，无冗余，结构清晰且前置核心信息。

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?

考虑到无输出schema和无注解，描述覆盖了主要操作场景（分页、平台参数、数量限制）。但未提及xhs平台的特定传参方式，也没有说明返回结构（除分页字段外），因此略有缺口。

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?

尽管schema已有100%字段描述，描述额外补充了参数关系与平台条件：count为单页量并区分抖音上限，抖音二级评论需comment_id，Bilibili的content_id使用详情返回的aid。这些语义在schema中未体现，极大帮助agent正确传参。

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?

描述明确说明工具用于获取公开内容的一级或二级评论，动词和资源清晰，且与兄弟工具（如内容详情、搜索）区分明显。同时具体指出抖音和Bilibili的平台差异，功能边界明确。

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?

描述提供了平台特定的参数使用指南（抖音需content_id/comment_id，Bilibili的content_id使用详情返回的数字aid），以及分页自动继续的触发条件。但未明确说明在何种情况下应选择其他兄弟工具，缺乏明确的排除性指导。

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