list_okr_progress_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well. It openly explains the internal behavior: Feishu has no native list endpoint, so the tool calls get_okrs and walks objective_list / kr_list to extract IDs with target_id and target_type. It also discloses the limitation that full content retrieval requires an unwrapped API, providing valuable behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two dense sentences. Every part contributes: the version/app context, the exact listing purpose, the non-obvious implementation detail, and the follow-up limitation. No wasted words.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (progress_record IDs with target_id and target_type). It also notes the need for progressRecord.get for full content. However, it omits details like pagination, error behavior, or the response structure beyond the extracted fields, which would be useful for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that okr_id identifies the OKR and mentions user_id_type as a pass-through to get_okrs, but it adds little beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter nuances such as how user_id_type affects the internal call or possible constraints on okr_id.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('List progress records for an OKR') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by explaining it extracts progress_record IDs via an internal get_okrs call. It uniquely addresses the lack of a native Feishu list endpoint, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to list progress record IDs for an OKR. It also gives a follow-up alternative by noting that full record content requires progressRecord.get (not yet wrapped), which helps agents avoid assuming full content is returned. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_okr_progress_record or delete_okr_progress_record.

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