User Group Users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important 'incremental by version' trait, which explains the required uver parameter's role, but it omits any note on auth/session requirements, what the query returns, or how incremental deltas are applied.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, and the resource purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the information it carries, though it errs on the terse side given the tool's complexity.

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, and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and multiple near-identical siblings, the description leaves gaps around when to call it and how it differs from related user/group tools.

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 all five parameters (host, port, uver, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the semantics of uver as a version cursor but adds nothing else beyond what the structured fields supply; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('查询' / query) and resource ('用户组成员关系' / user group membership), plus the incremental-by-version scope. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as user_group_info, user_list_ug, or user_groups, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. The agent gets what the tool does but nothing about the conditions that select it over the several similarly named user/group siblings.

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