获取用户资料

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some context about the returned data fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or whether the user must exist. This is acceptable for a simple read operation, but not exceptional.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists useful example fields. Every part contributes meaning, and there is 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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing between get_user_profile and get_current_user, which would make the contextual picture fully complete.

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%, with the user_id parameter already described as a pure numeric Xueqiu user ID obtainable from the user homepage URL. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the specific verb '获取' and the resource '用户详细资料', and enumerates representative fields like nickname, bio, follower count, and verification info. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_current_user or search_users.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention that get_current_user is for the authenticated user's own profile or that search_users should be used for finding users by name. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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