查看当前用户信息

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. The description adds the API endpoint and return fields (department, email, data source list), but does not disclose authentication needs or response format behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single concise sentence in Chinese states the purpose and API endpoint with no filler. Information is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the main returned content (user info, department, email, data source list) and the API endpoint. It omits error and permission details, but these are less critical for a low-complexity info tool.

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 single optional response_format parameter has a clear enum (markdown/json) and default value, making it self-explanatory in the schema. The description does not mention it, but the enum values provide enough meaning for correct invocation.

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?

Description names the specific verb '查看' and resource: current logged-in user's info, department, email, and accessible data source list. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sources by focusing on identity plus permission-scoped sources.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sources or other user-related tools. The API endpoint mapping is useful but does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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