获取用户 token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the absence of request parameters, and the unified response structure, but it does not state whether the operation has side effects (e.g., token rotation), what error responses look like besides a non-200 code, or any authentication requirements. This leaves some ambiguity for a token endpoint.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the endpoint and purpose, then states the lack of parameters, and finally the response format. Every sentence adds necessary information with no 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 low complexity (zero parameters, simple string response), the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the request shape, and the response data type. It falls slightly short by omitting details about non-success codes or token validity, but the 'unified response' convention partially covers that.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description explicitly confirms '请求参数: 无' (no request parameters), which matches the empty schema. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 and there is little more to add.

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 and resource: 'GET /open/user/token - 获取当前用户 token' (get current user token). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like open_token_list and open_get_access_key by specifying it returns the current user's token.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves the current user token, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as open_token_list or open_token_add. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned, leaving the routing to inference.

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