usage_describe

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds that this queries members via a plugin registration ID and returns layer binding/current candidate, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on response semantics or how the optional scope/context affect behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence with no filler. However, '本层绑定和当前候选' is unclear and would benefit from more precise wording, so it is not a perfect example of concise clarity.

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 values do not need to be described. With only one required parameter and a readable plugin explanation, a minimal call is possible. Still, optional scope/context semantics are left unexplained, making the description only minimally 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'plugin' is a registration ID; 'scope' and 'context' are not explained at all. This leaves the agent guessing about important optional parameters.

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 action ('查询' / query) and a resource ('成员' / members keyed by a Plugin registration ID). It also gives partial result scope with '本层绑定和当前候选', though that phrase is cryptic. Overall it is distinguishable from a preview tool like usage_preview.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as usage_preview, context_describe, or module_describe. The read-only annotations imply a safe query context, but the description itself provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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