eda_dmt_folder_get_all_folders_uuid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a non-obvious behavior: '本接口忽略层级信息，将会返回所有层级的文件夹的 UUID 并放置于一维数组中' (ignores hierarchy, returns all folder UUIDs flattened in a 1D array). It also states the return type (Promise<Array<string>>). It does not mention failure modes or side effects, but for a read-only getter these are less critical.

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 compact: a one-line signature, a one-line purpose, and a one-line remark plus returns. It stays on point without fluff and front-loads the core purpose before the behavioral remark. It could be structured more cleanly, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 getter, the description covers purpose, return type, and the notable flattening behavior. The main gap is the ambiguous requiredness of teamUuid: the signature implies it is required, while the schema reports 0 required parameters, and the description does not clarify what happens if it is omitted. No output schema is present, but the stated string-array return is sufficient.

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 only defines a generic 'args' array with empty items, so the signature's 'teamUuid: string' is the only hint about the actual parameter, adding some value beyond the schema. However, the description does not explain what teamUuid represents, whether it is required, or how it maps to the args array beyond the schema's 'official signature order' note. Since reported schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states '获取所有文件夹的 UUID' (get all folders' UUIDs), identifying a specific verb and resource. The code signature dmt_Folder.getAllFoldersUuid(teamUuid: string) reinforces the operation, and the remarks add that it returns all hierarchy levels flattened. While it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, the 'all folders UUID' scope distinguishes it from tools like get_folder_info or create_folder.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as eda_dmt_folder_get_folder_info (specific folder details) or eda_dmt_folder_create_folder. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool mentions. It only states what the tool does without any selection criteria.

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