yearning_user_info

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

注解已明确声明只读、幂等、非破坏性，描述补充了返回内容的具体字段和API地址，但未提及认证失败等边界情况。整体上注解加描述已足够透明。

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?

仅两句话，第一句说明目的，第二句给出API端点，无冗余信息，结构清晰。

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?

对于简单的只读信息工具，描述已覆盖主要返回内容，且存在输出模式。但未提及是否需要特定权限或用户未登录时的行为，但对整体使用影响不大。

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?

输入模式包含一个参数response_format（枚举markdown/json），但描述中未提及该参数的任何信息。由于模式描述覆盖率为0%，描述应补偿但未做到，导致代理需依赖模式本身。

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?

明确使用动词'查看'表明是只读操作，并具体说明了返回信息包括用户信息、部门、邮箱及可查询数据源列表，与兄弟姐妹工具（如查询表、运行SQL等）有明显区分。

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?

描述隐含了该工具用于获取当前用户信息，但未明确说明何时使用或何时不使用，也未提及替代方案。不过从上下文可推断其前置用途。

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