kdy_auth_fetch_token

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

无注解提供行为信息，描述中说明了自动退回第三方实例ID并走push_app_authorize的行为，算是一个行为透明度。但未披露副作用、返回格式或权限要求，对于无注解的工具来说，描述承担了较多责任，但信息仍不完整。

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?

描述仅一句话，简洁明了，没有冗余信息。但是结构上缺乏对核心行为的展开，不过作为简短描述，效率较高。

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?

工具简单，仅一个参数且无输出schema，但描述未说明返回结构、使用前提或失败情况。结合无注解，描述内容不足以让智能体完全理解如何正确使用该工具，因此2分。

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?

唯一参数uid在schema中仅有默认值，schema描述覆盖率为0%，描述中也未提及uid的用途或格式。描述完全没有补偿参数语义，导致调用方无法理解uid的作用，因此评分很低。

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?

描述明确说明工具作用是'换取 app-token'，动词和资源清晰。但未解释'app-token'的具体用途，且与兄弟工具（如业务查询类）区分不够明显，不过认证类工具本身独特，因此给4分。

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?

描述提到了当缺少app_key/app_secret时的自动替代流程，这提供了一定的使用场景说明。但没有明确说明何时应该主动调用此工具，也没有提及与其他认证或业务工具的先后顺序，使用指南不够充分。

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