mfuns_get_user

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 hints at the behavioral outcome (determining new vs old user) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or response behaviors. The get operation is inherently read-only, but no specific behavioral traits are described beyond the implicit purpose.

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, consisting of one purposeful sentence and a parameter stub. Every word contributes, making it a model of brevity without losing essential information.

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 user-retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the intended usage scenario, and the required parameter. It lacks only some peripheral details like error handling, but overall the context is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description's Args section simply repeats the parameter name and type from the schema ('user_id: 用户 ID') without adding semantic details such as format constraints, source, or examples. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, making this redundant.

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 retrieves a user profile ('获取用户资料') and adds the purpose of assessing whether the user is new or old before interaction. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools that target threads, videos, or feeds.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: '互动前了解对象' (understand the target before interacting), which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly exclude other tools, so it lacks the when-not guidance.

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