query_domain_origin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not describe any behavioral traits beyond being a read operation, such as the scope of the query (full vs partial configuration), permission requirements, or effects on state. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: a single phrase in Chinese. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No superfluous information. However, it could benefit from being in the same language as the expected agent interaction (likely English) for broader accessibility, but this does not detract from its conciseness.

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 query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It conveys the basic function. However, given the large number of sibling tools, additional context about what the origin configuration entails or how the output relates to other tools would improve completeness. The lack of output schema is noted, but the description could still hint at the nature of the response.

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 parameter 'domain' is described in the schema as '域名' (domain name). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. It meets the minimum but does not enhance understanding.

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 '查询域名源站配置' clearly states the tool's purpose: to query the origin configuration of a domain. It uses a specific verb ('query') and resource ('origin configuration'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that query other specific configurations (e.g., query_domain_cache_policy) or set the origin (set_domain_origin).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the domain needing to exist, or when not to use it. The description merely states the function without contextual usage advice.

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