docxListBlocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions preserving style/hierarchy, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination behavior (implied by page_size/page_token but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (implied but not stated). The description is insufficient for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly clearer. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the tool's complexity (pagination, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, authentication, and doesn't fully explain parameters. For a tool that likely returns structured block data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '文档根 block 或指定 block' (document root block or specified block), which hints at document_id usage but doesn't clarify if block_id is a parameter (it's not in schema). It doesn't explain page_size/page_token at all, leaving three parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action ('列出' meaning 'list') and resource ('文档根 block 或指定 block 的子结构'), specifying it retrieves document blocks with style/hierarchy preserved. It distinguishes from siblings like docxGetRawContent (which gets raw content) and feishu_fetch_doc (which likely fetches entire documents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools in the context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing document access), exclusions, or compare to siblings like feishu_search_doc_wiki for searching. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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