查询论坛报名分布

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond confirming it returns data, which is consistent with the annotations. Given the annotations provide strong coverage, the description adds limited extra transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without unnecessary words or redundancy. It adheres to good structural practices for a simple getter.

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 description is sufficient for a simple no-parameter getter, clearly indicating what data is returned. It lacks details on the output format or any pagination, but these are not critical for such a basic tool and could be inferred from the context. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no parameters (empty properties in schema). The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings because there are none, and it fully aligns with the schema. This is a trivial case where the description is perfectly adequate.

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 returns aggregated registration counts for forums, distinguishing it from other getter tools that focus on channels or industries. The specific mention of '六大平行论坛、特色专场及未识别论坛' makes its purpose 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., when to choose forum distribution over channel or industry distribution). The purpose is implied, but there is no direct comparison or alternative selection advice.

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