anon_get_work_sheet_user_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required authorization scope and the fact that the project is resolved automatically from the API key rather than supplied. This is exactly the kind of auth/scoping detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the permission constraint and the routing note. No filler, though the raw endpoint template could be considered redundant given the parameter structure is already in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, but this is a simple read-only lookup and the description covers purpose, authorization, and the implicit project scoping. It omits any hint about the returned sheet's contents, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nested path.userId, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that userId identifies the target member ('指定成员') and that no projectId is needed because the project is derived from the API key, which resolves the ambiguity, but it gives no format or validation guidance for userId itself.

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 gives a specific verb+resource in Chinese ('查看指定成员任务单' – view a specified member's task sheet), scoped to a single member via userId. It also states the exact endpoint path, which pins down the operation unambiguously. It does not explicitly name the sibling anon_get_work_sheet as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the prerequisite permission ('需 work:manage 权限', with project:manage passing and super admin unrestricted), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. However, it never contrasts this member-scoped call with the sibling anon_get_work_sheet, so the choice between the two must be inferred from the tool names alone.

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