get_priority_domain_settings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as read-only, and the description's '获取' (get) is consistent. It adds the navigation context that this is under Smart Flow Control, but does not disclose what the returned data looks like or any side effects (though none expected). Minimal added behavioral context.

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 in Chinese, efficiently conveys the resource and its location. No fluff, appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. It names the settings and the navigation path, but could benefit from explaining what the settings are used for (e.g., which domains get priority in flow control). Still, for a simple getter, it covers the essentials.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, aligning with the baseline 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 uses a specific verb (获取/get) and names the resource (优先域名设置/priority domain settings), with a parenthetical navigation path (智能流控 → 优先域名) that adds context. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling getters beyond the resource name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it retrieves priority domain settings, which is largely self-evident from the name.

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