get_sts_no_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call uses GET, requires no authentication, and returns the raw response body – all useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention any side effects, error behavior, or whether it is read-only beyond the implied GET semantics, leaving some gaps.

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 entire description is a single, tight sentence that leads with the purpose, then adds the distinguishing attribute (免鉴权), the endpoint, and the response format. There is no fluff or repetition, and every clause carries meaning.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it fetches, that it's the no-auth variant, the exact HTTP path, and that the response is raw. It does not elaborate on when to prefer this over get_sts, but the phrase '免鉴权变体' provides sufficient context given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, so it fully satisfies the requirement.

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 states a specific action ('获取对象存储临时凭证' – get object storage temporary credentials) and resource, and explicitly identifies it as a no-authentication variant, distinguishing it from the sibling get_sts. It also names the exact endpoint and response format, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

The description provides clear context by labeling the tool as a '免鉴权变体' (no-auth variant), which implies when to use it (when authentication is not needed). However, it does not explicitly name get_sts as the alternative or state the condition for choosing one over the other, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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