feishu_bitable_app_table_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool operates '以用户身份' (as the user identity), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens during updates (overwrite vs merge), or response formats. For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities (create/patch), this leaves significant behavioral gaps unexplained.

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 efficiently structured in three parts: identity context, usage trigger, and action list. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no wasted words. However, the Chinese brackets 【】around the identity statement are slightly unconventional, and the action list could be more elegantly integrated, preventing a perfect score.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the multi-action nature's implications (how parameters vary by action), doesn't describe return values or error handling, and provides minimal behavioral context for mutation operations. The 75% schema coverage helps, but the description doesn't adequately compensate for the missing structural information.

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 75%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions '切换展示方式' (switch display methods) which loosely relates to the view_type parameter with its enum values (grid, kanban, etc.), but doesn't explain when each view_type is appropriate or how parameters interact across different actions. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% coverage gap, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: '飞书多维表格视图管理工具' (Feishu multi-dimensional table view management tool) with specific actions listed (create, get, list, patch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feishu_bitable_app_table_record (which handles records) and feishu_bitable_app_table_field (which handles fields) by focusing specifically on views. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 clear usage context: '当用户要求创建/查询/更新视图、切换展示方式时使用' (use when users request to create/query/update views, switch display methods). It lists the specific actions available (create, get, list, patch) which helps guide selection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternative tools for related operations, preventing a score of 5.

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