檢查本機使用者資訊

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one extra piece of context — that no hosted subscription or vendor account exists in this project — which frames the expected result, but it says nothing about what is actually returned (username, hostname, UID) or any auth requirement.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler, and the core purpose ('Local OS identity') is placed first. It is perhaps slightly too terse — the second sentence reads as a caveat whose practical implication is not spelled out.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description should carry information about what identity fields come back and whether it is cheap/side-effect free. It covers only the conceptual scope, leaving the return content entirely unspecified.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior the description could or should document.

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 names a specific resource — local OS identity — which is more precise than the tool name alone and clarifies that 'current user' means the OS user, not an application account. It does not differentiate against any sibling, but none of the siblings (device tools, file tools) overlap enough to cause confusion.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any precondition. A reader must infer from context that this is a diagnostic/identity check, which is thin guidance for an agent selecting among eleven sibling tools.

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