lark_oauth_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior well: it's a read-only status check (implied by '查询'), describes the return values clearly (has_token/access_expired/refresh_expired/expires_in_sec), and mentions the default identity fallback. However, it doesn't cover potential error cases, rate limits, or authentication requirements for the tool itself.

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 perfectly concise: one sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, default behavior, and return values. Every element earns its place with zero wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage: purpose, usage context, return values, and default behavior. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling or edge case information, but for this tool's complexity, it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with one optional parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the default behavior when open_id is omitted ('默认为 app 所有者'), which clarifies the tool's semantics beyond the schema's technical specification. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 specific action ('查询' - query/check) and resource ('Feishu 用户... user_access_token'), with precise scope about defaulting to app owner. It distinguishes from siblings like lark_oauth_start (initiates OAuth) and lark_oauth_revoke (revokes tokens) by focusing on status checking only.

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 clear context about when to use this tool: to check OAuth token status for a Feishu user. It implicitly suggests using this before operations requiring user_access_token, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The parameter description mentions the default behavior when open_id is omitted.

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