user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a query (read-only) via the verb '查询', which is a useful trait. However, it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the user must exist. The minimal read-only implication earns a baseline score, but richer context is missing.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key data points. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could be slightly more explicit about the parameter.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool, the description covers the main purpose and the delivered information. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps such as error behavior, whether the user must exist, and the exact output format. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent encountering this tool for the first time.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'username' parameter at all, nor explain how to specify which user to query. The purpose implies that a user identifier is needed, but without explicit parameter semantics, agents may be unsure of the expected format or whether the username is a login name or display name.

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 action ('查询' - query) and the target resource (用户资料 - user profile), and enumerates the data fields returned (trust level, registration/last online time, post count, like count). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_topic or search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid username, nor any comparison with similar tools like user_actions or whoami. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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