读取北邮人论坛十大

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds '当前' and the list of returned fields, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, pagination, or error conditions. With annotations present, 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place; no fluff or irrelevant detail.

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, has two optional fully documented parameters, read-only/open-world annotations, and an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly without missing critical context.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both 'limit' and 'preview_chars'. The description's mention of '预览' aligns with the preview_chars parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取') and a specific resource ('当前十大'), and enumerates the returned fields (board, thread ID, author, time, preview, link). It clearly conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, so it falls just 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 phrase '当前十大' implies this tool is for retrieving the current top-10 list as opposed to searching or reading a specific thread/board. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as search_posts or get_index_status.

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