Check lark-cli auth status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe, non-mutating nature. The description adds specific context by naming what is checked (granted scopes, active identity), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and usage context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, while structured data handles return format and safety details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter ambiguity. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description need not compensate for missing parameter info. It correctly implies no inputs are required.

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's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resources ('Feishu/Lark login status, granted scopes, and active identity'). It is distinct from sibling tools (run, schema, help), which focus on execution, metadata, and CLI assistance respectively.

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 phrase 'before calls' provides explicit usage context, indicating when to invoke this tool (prior to other operations). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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