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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses authorization scope, only_active filtering behavior, and output name normalization ('name 为空时可标准化为未命名'). The mention of 'name' is slightly ambiguous since it is not an input parameter, and the return format is only implied rather than stated.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by compact 前置/后续 sections. The three scenario examples add value for an agent deciding when to call the tool, though the description is slightly long for a 2-parameter list tool.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, scenarios, parameter behavior, prerequisites, and downstream workflow. The return shape (kfid + name) is implied but not explicitly stated, which is a minor gap without an output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces only_active semantics ('only_active=true 时只返回可用客服') but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions, particularly for scene.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('获取当前授权范围内的客服列表') and adds the core purpose ('把客服姓名解析成 kfid'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like zhini_list_active_sessions, zhini_list_channels, and zhini_list_tags, which target different resources.

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 gives three concrete usage scenarios ('客服A负责哪些客户', '抽查某客服历史接待', '队列统计时把 kfid 转成人名'), states prerequisites explicitly ('前置：无'), and names downstream tools (zhini_search_customers, zhini_search_sessions, zhini_list_active_sessions). This is explicit when-to-use guidance with workflow context.

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