获取云盘文件夹列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it limits the list to folders, restricts to two levels under root, and specifies the returned fields (folder ID, parent ID, name). This helps the agent set expectations without needing an output schema.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main action is in the first sentence, and the return structure is in the second. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, scope, and return fields. Since there is no output schema, the return description is valuable. Minor gaps like pagination or ordering are not critical for this tool's typical use.

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%, with the only parameter 'response_format' fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already handles parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb '获取' (get) and resource '机构云盘根目录下两级的文件夹列表', specifying exactly what it retrieves. It distinguishes from sibling tools by adding the two-level depth under root, which is not present in generic cloud list tools.

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 implies usage through the explicit scope '根目录下两级', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives like classin_get_cloud_list. The agent must infer when this tool is the correct choice based on the folder-depth constraint.

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