yearning_user_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by specifying the exact payload (user info, department, email, authorized data sources) and the underlying API endpoint, without contradicting 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 consists of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and end with the API endpoint. Every word earns its place, 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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with strong annotations and an output schema; the description covers what is returned and the endpoint. Given the low complexity and available structured metadata, the description is complete enough for the AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 response_format is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema's enum values (markdown/json) and default provide some semantic clarity, but the description adds no parameter-level guidance and fails to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb '查看' (view) and names exact resources: current logged-in user's information, department, email, and authorized data source list. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list databases, tables, orders, or run queries.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the description clearly implies the natural use case of retrieving one's own user profile and permissions. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it is minimally viable.

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