读取人物画像

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns '完整人物画像' including all fact entries and their factIds, which is useful return-context. But it doesn't disclose behavior like pagination, limits, or whether facts are returned in any particular order. With readOnlyHint covering the main concern, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed immediately by source guidance for the id. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not needed. It has a single required parameter that is adequately explained. Given the low complexity and presence of output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete. It could briefly mention that facts are listed with factIds (which it does), and the provenance of the id is 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single profileId parameter. The description clarifies the id's provenance ('通常来自 search_profiles 或 list_profiles'), effectively explaining what profileId means and where to get it. With only 1 parameter, this compensation is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('按 id 读取完整人物画像') and specifies what's returned (全部事实条目及其 factId). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools but doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool — it states the id '通常来自 search_profiles 或 list_profiles', which gives the agent guidance on how ids are obtained and implies this is the retrieval tool for a known id. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like search_profiles.

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