get_upload_token

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return fields (accessid/host/policy/signature), upload target (Alibaba Cloud OSS), failure mode (signature fails on mime_type mismatch), and downstream dependency (save_note). Minor gap: no mention of token expiration/TTL.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose, return values, workflow integration, and critical warning. The warning emoji effectively signals high-priority constraint. Information is front-loaded and structured logically.

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?

Lacking output schema, description compensates by enumerating return fields and explaining the full integration flow with sibling tools. Complete enough for invocation, though token expiration time would strengthen it further.

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%, but description adds critical validation semantics not present in schema: the warning that mime_type must match actual file format or OSS signature fails. This constraint is essential for correct invocation and not inferable from the enum list alone.

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 clearly states specific action (获取/get) and resource (OSS image upload token/credential), and distinguishes from sibling `upload_image` by specifying this returns multipart/form-data credentials for Alibaba Cloud OSS rather than performing a direct upload.

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 documents the complete workflow chain (get token → upload to OSS → obtain image_id → use save_note), specifies the HTTP method (multipart/form-data POST), and includes a warning about the prerequisite condition (mime_type must match actual file format).

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