User Frozen List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the one-line purpose it says nothing about whether this is a safe read, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated, or what a frozen account entry contains, leaving the agent to assume.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all connection parameters are schema-documented. What is missing is the relational context: how this list differs from user_list and its link to user_unfreeze, plus any note on read-only safety.

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 host, port, scheme and profile are already documented in the schema (NAS address, port, protocol, session profile). The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable given full coverage — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('列出被冻结的账号' / list frozen accounts), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling user_list, which plausibly lists all accounts including frozen ones; the agent must infer the difference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like user_list and user_unfreeze in scope, the description never says how this tool relates to them (e.g. use this to audit frozen accounts, then user_unfreeze to reactivate). Usage is only implied by the name.

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