蓝奏云文件链接

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API call and parameters but fails to describe key traits such as authentication needs (implied by cookieHeader), rate limits, error handling, or what the output includes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the API call and key parameters. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters (2 required), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it lacks context on authentication, errors, and sibling tool differentiation, making it only minimally adequate.

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 description must compensate. It references file_id and implies cookieHeader usage but doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., fileId as identifier, cookieHeader for authentication) or the optional uid. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool calls a specific API endpoint (doupload.php task=22) to get file download information and links by file_id, which clarifies the action and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'lanzou_get_direct_link' or 'lanzou_get_mydisk_content', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lanzou_get_direct_link'. The description implies usage based on file_id and cookieHeader, but there's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering minimal context for selection.

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