uno_call_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses automatic connection creation, the OAuth auth_required/auth_url round-trip, the retry requirement, and the rating_hint side-effect. It does not cover failure/error semantics for tool execution itself, which keeps it from 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?

Bracketed sections front-load identity format, then connection behavior, then workflow, then follow-up scoring. Each block is short and every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter dispatcher with a nested free-form arguments object and no output schema, the description covers format, auth, and lifecycle sufficiently. It stops short of describing error handling or response shape, but rating_hint is noted as the notable return signal.

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 value with concrete tool_name examples (amap-maps.maps_weather, time.get_current_time) and clarifies that arguments follow each tool's own inputSchema — information the schema text alone does not supply.

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 concrete verb+resource (执行 MCP Server 上的具体工具) and immediately defines the identity format for the target tool. The typical-flow section makes clear how it differs from the search/routing siblings (uno_search_tools finds, uno_call_tool invokes).

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 【典型流程】 block explicitly routes the agent: search first, then call, then rate with uno_rate_server. It also distinguishes normal vs OAuth servers and tells the agent to retry after browser authorization, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance needed.

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