Read lark-cli help

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: shortcuts are discovered via help, which is useful context for the agent. No contradictions with annotations. Output schema covers return values, so no need to describe them.

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 only two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Read help...') and then a concise usage hint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple help-retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter semantics, including examples like ['calendar'] or ['im','+messages-send']. The tool description itself does not mention the 'args' parameter, so it adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. 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 explicitly states 'Read help for a service or command,' which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (lark_cli_run, lark_cli_schema, lark_cli_auth_status) by focusing on help retrieval. The added note about using before shortcuts clarifies its role in the toolchain.

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 provides a clear when-to-use guideline: 'Use before shortcuts because shortcuts are discovered via help.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling tool names imply the other use cases.

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