lanhu_get_annotations

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

无注解，描述承担全部责任。它列出了返回内容（树形结构、切图列表、画板尺寸等），提供了行为信息，但未明确是否只读、是否需要认证、失败时返回什么、是否有速率限制。'获取'暗示读取操作，但未明确确认。返回内容细节是积极因素，但覆盖面有限。

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?

描述使用一个短句和列表高效传递关键信息，避免冗余。返回内容分类清晰，结构良好。未超长，语言精炼。

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?

考虑到工具复杂性（无输出schema），描述详细列出了返回的内容类别，涵盖主要使用所需信息。虽然未提及认证或错误处理，但兄弟工具中有lanhu_set_cookie，且参数描述已提示image_id来源，整体信息足以支持正确调用。欠缺的是使用场景和前提，但描述已相当完整。

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?

输入schema中所有参数都有中文描述，覆盖率达100%，描述未额外解释参数含义，符合基线（schema已承担解释重任）。没有需要补偿的缺口，因此3分合适。

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?

描述明确说明工具用途：获取单张设计图的完整标注数据，并详细列出了返回内容（图层树、文本、切图、画板尺寸），清晰区分于兄弟工具（如获取屏幕列表或资产）。动词'获取'配合'设计图标注数据'，资源具体。

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?

描述声称是'最核心的工具'，但未明确指明何时使用它而非兄弟工具，也未提及前置步骤（如先获取团队/项目/屏幕ID）。没有排除用途或替代方案。参数描述中提供了一些来源信息，但描述本身未强化使用场景。

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