yearning_order_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope ('全部评论') and API endpoint, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or other behaviors. 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and an API reference. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple, and annotations plus output schema handle some context. However, the description lacks usage guidelines and response_format semantics, which is noticeable given the tool's context among 14 siblings. It is adequate but not 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 coverage is 50%; work_id is described in the schema ('工单号'), but response_format is undocumented in both schema and description. The description text adds no parameter semantics, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 all comments for a specified work order, using a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('指定工单的全部评论'). It also references the exact API. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like yearning_order_detail or yearning_order_timeline, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers only the core function and API reference, with no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

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