query_utility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns parameters, return values, and usage examples, and the verb '查询' (query) implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or other behavioral details like error conditions or permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function in the first sentence and the use case in the second. Every word is purposeful; no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return content (parameters, return values, examples), and usage context. It could be more complete with explicit read-only confirmation or error handling notes, but for a query tool it is sufficient.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and an example ('formatNumber'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the parameter's role ('根据工具方法名称'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: '根据工具方法名称查询详细信息' (query detailed information based on utility method name). It specifies the verb (query), resource (utility method), and distinguishes from siblings like query_component (which targets components) and suggest_utilities (which suggests rather than queries).

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: '用于了解推荐工具方法的具体用法' (used to understand usage of recommended utility methods). This implies when to use it—when you have a recommended utility and need details. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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