User Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it states only that it queries user info. It does not indicate whether it is a safe read, whether authentication/session is required, which user is targeted by default, or how errors surface.

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 with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is front-loaded in the trivial sense of having only one clause.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin: it omits the connection-targeting semantics (host/port/scheme/profile), the default-user behavior, and any differentiation from siblings. The presence of an output schema covers return-value explanation, but not the contextual gaps.

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, user, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but per the high-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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?

"查询用户信息" merely restates the tool name and title (User Info) without specifying what user info is returned, whose info, or how it differs from siblings like whoami, user_list, or user_group_info. It is a tautology rather than a specific verb+resource statement.

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 guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions distinguishing it from the many user-related siblings (whoami, user_list, user_group_info, user_login_devices). The agent is left to guess entirely.

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