Run lark-cli command

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that side-effect commands require confirm=true, reinforcing safety expectations. It also mentions argv-style execution, implying arbitrary command behavior, which is useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences front-load the core action and then provide the most critical safety guidance. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a generic command runner with an output schema and safety annotations, the description gives essential first-step guidance (schema/help), risk classification, and the confirm gate. It could mention timeout/output limits, but those are already represented in the input schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 60% and includes useful descriptions for args, intent, and confirm. The description restates the confirm requirement already present in the schema and does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the enum and field descriptions already provide.

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?

Description states 'Run the official lark-cli with argv-style arguments' with a specific verb and resource, making the action unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like schema/help/auth_status by positioning itself as the actual command executor.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use schema/help first,' which directs the agent to consult sibling tools before running arbitrary commands. It also clarifies that write/auth_config commands require confirm=true, providing meaningful context for side-effect handling, though it doesn't enumerate specific 'when not to use' cases.

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