lanhu_get_teams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a secondary behavior (auth validation), which hints at failure on invalid authentication. However, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., setting a cookie via a sibling tool) or the exact behavior when authentication fails, and it does not explicitly state read-only semantics.

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 two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and append a useful secondary use. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless getter, the description covers the core function and an extra use case. An output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is not stating that authentication must be configured first, but the auth-validation hint partially addresses this.

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 description has nothing to explain about parameter meaning. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('团队列表' / team list) for the current logged-in user, and adds a secondary purpose (verifying authentication validity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on projects, screens, or assets.

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 explicitly indicates when to use it (list teams and check auth validity), which is clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools target different resources, so the usage scenario is unambiguous without exclusion statements.

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