get_stranger_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output content (nickname, gender, age, level, signature) in the absence of an output schema, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The no_cache parameter is schema-documented rather than explained further here.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, followed by a compact param recap. Slightly redundant to repeat parameters already in the schema, but overall efficient 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned profile fields, which is exactly what the missing output schema would otherwise require. Required parameter and optional cache flag are both covered.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description merely restates them (':' param user_id' 目标 QQ 号, no_cache 是否不使用缓存). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (获取) and resource (指定 QQ 用户的公开个人资料) and even enumerates the returned fields (昵称、性别、年龄、等级、个性签名等). It scopes to 好友或陌生人, which implicitly separates it from group-scoped siblings like get_group_member_info, but it never names an alternative to sharpen the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tool named. The '好友或陌生人' phrasing hints at broad applicability but does not tell the agent when to pick this over get_friend_list or get_group_member_info.

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