lark_oauth_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns an authorization URL and user code, requires user interaction (opening a browser and entering a code), and enables other Feishu tools upon successful authorization. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the OAuth flow, leaving some gaps.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear usage instructions and context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's complexity (OAuth flow initiation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage flow, and outcome (enabling other tools), but doesn't detail return values or error handling, which could be helpful for an agent. However, it covers the critical aspects well for its role.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (scope), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain scope usage or examples), but it doesn't need to compensate as schema coverage is high.

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: '启动飞书用户授权的 Device Flow,返回授权 URL 和用户码' (Start Feishu user authorization Device Flow, return authorization URL and user code). It specifies the exact action (start OAuth Device Flow) and resource (Feishu user authorization), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lark_oauth_complete, which is mentioned as the next step.

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 explicit usage guidelines: '使用后请让用户在浏览器打开 verification_uri 并输入 user_code,然后调用 lark_oauth_complete(device_code) 完成授权' (After use, have the user open verification_uri in a browser and enter user_code, then call lark_oauth_complete(device_code) to complete authorization). It clearly states when to use this tool (to start OAuth) and what to do next, including naming the alternative tool (lark_oauth_complete).

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