lanhu_get_design_slices

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and openWorld hints. The description adds value by detailing the returned data (download addresses, sizes, coordinates) and clarifying off_canvas semantics. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with essential information. Every word carries weight; 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?

Despite no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. Parameter descriptions are complete, and the tool's behavior (including edge case 'off_canvas') is covered. No gaps.

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%. Both parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves '切图清单' (slices list) for a single design, listing specific data fields (PNG/SVG URLs, logical_size, position, stored_size). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_design_preview or get_design_schema.

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 explains the meaning of 'off_canvas=true' and its practical implication ('是否使用以及资源如何落地由目标端决定'). It provides context for interpreting results but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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