蓝奏云网盘内容

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions calling an API endpoint with a default parameter (task=5), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (implied by cookieHeader parameter), rate limits, error handling, or what 'disk content' includes. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavior unspecified.

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 very concise with just one sentence, front-loaded with the API call. There's no wasted text, but it may be overly terse given the complexity. Every word earns its place, though more detail would improve utility without sacrificing brevity.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings or behavioral context, though the output schema may cover return values. For a tool with authentication and API interaction, more guidance is needed despite the output schema.

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 only mentions the requestBody parameter having a default value of 'task=5', but doesn't explain what uid or cookieHeader are for, their formats, or how they relate to the operation. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this adds minimal 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) to get disk content, which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'disk content' means (files, folders, metadata?) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like lanzou_get_file_link or lanzou_get_direct_link. The description lacks specificity about the resource being retrieved.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like lanzou_get_file_link or lanzou_get_direct_link, nor does it explain prerequisites (e.g., needing to log in first with lanzou_login). There's no context about when this tool is appropriate versus other methods.

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