User Group Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond an implied read. It does not state authentication/permission requirements, whether it fails on non-existent groups, or any side effects. Only the bare 'query' semantics are conveyed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and waste-free, which is structurally fine. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine efficiency.

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 explained, but for a 5-parameter tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and numerous confusable siblings, the description is far too thin to guide correct selection and invocation.

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% (host, port, group, scheme, profile all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or interaction beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource ('查询用户组详情' – query user group details), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it essentially restates the tool name/title 'user_group_info' and offers no differentiation from the many adjacent siblings (user_groups, user_group_users, user_info, user_list_ug). It is minimally viable but not distinguishing.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus user_groups (list groups), user_group_users (list members), or user_info. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given despite a dense sibling namespace where routing guidance is essential.

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