uno_get_credits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly frames this as a read-only balance query and discloses the return contents plus the recharge_url follow-up action. It omits any note on auth requirements or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 before the return contents and the follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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, so the description appropriately enumerates the return fields (current credits, daily free quota, total consumed, recharge link). For a zero-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, though it could mention auth or failure modes.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which per the rubric sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description's mention of recharge_url is about a return value, not an input, so it adds no parameter meaning.

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 and resource (查询工具调用积分余额) and even enumerates what is returned. It is clearly distinct from siblings like uno_search_tools or uno_call_tool, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear contextual guidance: when credits are insufficient, direct the user to recharge via recharge_url. It does not state any when-not conditions or name a specific alternative tool, but for a simple balance query this context is sufficient.

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