lark_get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important conditional behavior (no user_id → query self) beyond what the name implies. It doesn't mention permissions or error cases, but the output schema covers return details and this is a simple read operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and the optional-parameter behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and the meaningful behavioral nuance. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents user_id as an optional string. The description adds key semantics: omitting user_id results in querying the caller's own info. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 ('获取飞书用户信息' = get Lark user info) and adds the scoped behavior of querying self when user_id is omitted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lark_get_chat_members and lark_list_chats.

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 gives clear usage context: pass user_id to get a specific user, omit it to get your own info. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the resource is distinct enough that the guidance is clear.

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