User List Ug

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 discloses one trait (incremental/version-based queries), but that is already implied by the uver parameter schema, and it says nothing about permissions, auth, or scope of the dump. A listing tool implies read-only, so the safety profile is at least inferable.

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 well-formed sentence with the capability front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter tool, but there is zero waste.

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 needn't be explained. But for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description omits connection context (NAS host/session profile) and how the users/groups toggles behave, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 71% with 7 parameters, so the schema documents most fields (host, port, uver, scheme, profile). The description's '版本号做增量查询' merely restates what the uver schema entry already says and adds nothing about the users/groups boolean toggles or connection parameters.

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 (列出/list) and two resources (用户/users, 用户组/groups), which the cryptic name 'user_list_ug' and title 'User List Ug' do not convey on their own. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearby user_list or user_groups siblings, so an agent must infer that this one returns both.

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?

The parenthetical hints at a usage mode — incremental query via version number — which implies 'use this when syncing incrementally.' However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name the alternatives (user_list, user_groups) it overlaps with.

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