get_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions that the list includes quality scores and trend analysis, but the schema shows include_trend_info defaults to false and include_quality_score defaults to true, so the unprompted claim about trend analysis is potentially misleading. No information is given about pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key features. It is concise and every part of the sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition, making it an excellent example of concise description.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level summary and does not explain return values, pagination mechanics, default behaviors, or how it compares to sibling tools. For a tool with this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves significant gaps in an agent's understanding.

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 schema has full coverage for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions category, sorting, pagination, quality score, and trend analysis, but these are already fully explained in the schema descriptions. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it neither improves nor degrades parameter clarity.

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 '获取掘金文章列表' (get Juejin article list), which specifies the verb and resource. It also mentions support for category, sorting, pagination, and inclusion of quality scores and trend analysis. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like search_articles or get_trending_articles, so it stops 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a filtered, paginated list of articles, which gives some context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or get_trending_articles, and it does not mention any exclusions or conditions. The usage is inferred from the feature list rather than stated.

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