get_knowledge_file_upload_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it flags credentials as sensitive, forbids putting them in chat/logs/command arguments, and prescribes passing them via a controlled file or stdin. It also discloses that pending/processing is not completion and that recovery is constrained to the original operation_id. Missing are token lifetime/expiry and whether minting a credential consumes quota, which are exactly the facts an agent operating under rate limits needs.

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 structure is inverted: the core purpose sentence sits in the middle of the paragraph, behind recovery, rate-limit, and credential rules, and the credential-handling warning is repeated almost verbatim twice ('不得放进聊天、日志或命令参数' and '不写命令参数或聊天'). The first sentence about retaining uploaded objects and client_request_id assumes context the reader does not yet have.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what the returned credential looks like, how long it is valid, or what the response contains on a rate-limit or unsupported-operation failure, even though it describes those failure modes. It is strong on operational safety and recovery semantics, moderate on completeness for a credential-minting tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces operation_id semantics ('恢复仅查询原 operation_id') and ties the size cap back to a capability limit, but it adds no new meaning for mime_type beyond what the schema already states, and the CLI flags it mentions (--token-file, --max-size-bytes) are not the tool's own parameters, which could confuse the mapping.

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 contains a specific verb+resource statement: '获取一次 OSS 文件上传临时凭据' (get a temporary OSS file upload credential), and the CLI invocation plus the note that no re-login is needed distinguishes it from sibling credential tools like get_upload_token. The drawback is placement: the actual purpose appears only in the fifth sentence, after four sentences of preconditions, so an agent skimming the first line gets workflow constraints rather than what the tool does.

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 gives concrete when/when-not guidance: do not re-upload when rate-limited, keep the original client_request_id, and for recovery reuse the original operation_id only (explicitly no new key may be auto-requested). It also excludes a wrong path ('不要把文件字节传给云 MCP'). It never names a sibling tool by name as the alternative, which keeps it out of the top band.

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