zhiqi_collab_policy

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a read-only viewing operation through the verb '查看' and exposes authentication requirements, but it does not explicitly state that calling it has no side effects, nor does it mention rate limits or other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple no-parameter read tool but not fully transparent.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the essential channel and configuration constraints. Every part of the sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does, who or what it applies to, the allowed channel, and the required local configuration. It does not describe what the returned policy looks like, but that is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The mention of 'userToken' identifies a local configuration prerequisite rather than an input parameter, which is useful context. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 the specific verb '查看' (view) and a specific resource, '本主体的协作授权策略' (this subject's collaboration authorization policy). It clearly distinguishes itself from the many sibling collaboration tools by focusing on policy viewing rather than posting, accepting, or listing collaborations.

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?

The description explicitly states the access channel ('仅人类登录态通道 A') and the prerequisite ('需要本地配置 userToken'), which are important invocation conditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the constraints give clear context for invocation.

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