检查飞书登录状态

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool only checks installation/login/identity and does not perform the login itself (the user must execute the command), which is valuable. It stops short of explicitly stating the tool has no side effects or describing the exact response shape, but it covers the principal behavioral trait.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states what is checked, the second states when to invoke it, and the third states the follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the checked state, the triggering error condition, and the guided next step. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call it and act on the result.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('检查'/check) and names exact resources: whether lark-cli is installed, current login status, and available identity (user/bot). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling read/write tools for docs, sheets, and bases, which perform data operations rather than auth diagnostics.

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?

It provides an explicit trigger condition: when read/write operations report permission errors, call this tool first to troubleshoot. It also tells the agent what to do if not logged in (follow returned guidance and have the user run login on the deployment machine), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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