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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, that share records are removed alongside the physical objects, and the underlying storage layers affected (WebDAV/S3). It omits failure semantics such as behavior on partially valid file_ids or what happens to files not owned by the caller, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded, then the cascade scope, then the authorization precondition. No filler and no repetition.

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?

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: irreversibility, cascade scope, and the authorization gate. Only edge-case behavior (partial failures, unknown or non-owned IDs) is left unspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters (confirm, file_ids with its 50-item cap) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm=true requirement but adds no new semantics such as ID format or behavior for unknown IDs, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource (irreversibly delete CloudPaste files) plus a scope constraint (only files created by the current API Key), and spells out the cascade (share records and underlying WebDAV/S3 objects). An agent can distinguish this from the read-only siblings (list_files, get_file, test_connection) immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit gating precondition: call only after obtaining explicit user deletion authorization, and confirm=true is mandatory. It does not enumerate a when-not case (e.g. soft delete / recycle bin alternatives), but the sibling set contains no competing delete tool, so routing guidance is effectively complete.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: it is scoped to files created by the current API Key, returns controlled preview and download links by default, and filters password or secret fields. It still does not explicitly confirm read-only safety or error behavior, but it adds substantial context.

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 compact sentence with the key scope and return behavior front-loaded. Every clause contributes useful information without filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter get tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers ownership scope, default link behavior, and sensitive-field filtering. However, it does not describe the full returned detail structure or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema by specifying that file_id refers to a file created by the current API Key. It also reiterates the include_links default behavior, though that is already in the 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 a specific verb and resource: query the details of a single CloudPaste file. It scopes the file to those created by the current API Key and adds default return behavior, making it distinguishable from list_files, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_files or other siblings. The description implies retrieving one file by ID, but it does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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 usefully states that passwords, keys, and other sensitive fields are not returned, and scope is limited to files created by the current API Key, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, side effects, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by search support and a security note, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, search capability, and sensitive-field exclusion. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of returned file records or pagination metadata, leaving some return-value context missing.

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 100%, so limit, offset, and search are already well documented in the schema. The description mentions keyword search and pagination generally but adds no syntax, constraints, or example values beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb (分页查询) and resource (远程文件) and adds an important scope: files created by the current API Key. This is clearly a listing operation rather than a single get/delete/upload, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as get_file.

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 mentions that keyword search is supported, implying the tool is for browsing owned files, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as get_file for fetching a single file.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a security property ('不会返回或记录 API Key'), which is real added context, but it omits whether a network round-trip occurs, where the URL/key are sourced from, what the result looks like on failure, or any latency/side-effect profile.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose (validity check plus returned summary) and then caps it with the security guarantee. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return value, and it does (a non-sensitive permission summary). The main remaining gap is failure/diagnostic behavior, but for a zero-argument verification tool this is reasonably complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the credentials are read from ambient configuration rather than passed as arguments.

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 names a specific action (validate the CloudPaste URL and API Key) and a specific output (a non-sensitive permission summary of the current key), so the agent knows exactly what the call accomplishes. It is unmistakably distinct from the file-operation siblings (upload_file, list_files, get_file, delete_files).

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight credential check, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. before other operations, or to diagnose auth failures) nor any conditions under which it should be skipped. With no comparable sibling to route against, no explicit alternative is needed, keeping this at the implied level.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a remote share side effect, a forced CloudPaste controlled-proxy download link, a 24-hour default expiry, and the success payload (direct link, file ID, expiry). It omits auth/permission requirements, overwrite or slug-collision behavior, and size limits, but covers more than most mutation tools.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and its main side effect, then the defaults and the return payload. Nothing is wasted, though the single run-on clause makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would.

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?

For a six-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is uploaded, the share side effect, the default expiry, and the returned fields. Remaining gaps (permissions, failure modes, slug conflicts) are secondary but not negligible.

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 100%, so all six parameters (path, slug, remark, file_path, expires_in_hours, storage_config_id) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the 24-hour default for expires_in_hours and the local-file nature of file_path but adds no syntax, constraints, or format details beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (uploads a caller-specified local regular file) plus its consequential effect (creates a remote share). That is unambiguous against the read/delete siblings (list_files, get_file, delete_files, test_connection), and an agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description scopes the input to an 'explicitly specified local regular file', which quietly rules out URLs, directories, or search-based selection. It never states when not to use it, nor names an alternative, and with no sibling upload tool the agent gets no routing help beyond the obvious.

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