蓝奏云直链获取

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the technical process (extracting ajaxm/sign, requesting downprocess) but lacks critical behavioral information: authentication requirements (cookieHeader parameter usage), rate limits, error handling, what constitutes a valid shareUrl, or whether this operation has side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 appropriately concise - one sentence that efficiently describes the tool's functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core capability and follows with implementation details. However, the technical jargon ('ajaxm/sign', 'downprocess') assumes domain knowledge without explanation, slightly reducing clarity for non-specialist agents.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does technically but misses important context: parameter usage, authentication needs, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema existence means return values documentation isn't needed, but other contextual gaps remain significant for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions support for '无密码与带密码分享页' (password/no-password sharing pages) which relates to the 'password' parameter, and implies URL processing for 'shareUrl', but doesn't explain the 'cookieHeader' parameter at all or provide format examples, validation rules, or relationship between parameters. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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's purpose: '蓝奏云直链获取' (LanZou Cloud direct link acquisition) with specific actions - supports password/no-password sharing pages, extracts ajaxm/sign from /fn or sharing page scripts, and requests downprocess to get direct links. It uses specific verbs ('支持', '自动提取', '请求获取') and identifies the resource (direct links from LanZou Cloud). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lanzou_get_file_link' which might have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lanzou_get_file_link' or 'lanzou_get_mydisk_content'. It mentions support for password/no-password scenarios but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit when/when-not instructions.

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