feishu_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool operates '以用户身份' (as a user), implying authentication requirements, but doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema's page_size/page_token, or what happens on errors. For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the overall purpose and another listing actions with brief explanations. It's front-loaded with the tool's scope. However, the second sentence is somewhat dense, combining both actions without clear separation, which slightly affects readability.

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 (6 parameters, 2 actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication needs, or how actions map to parameters (e.g., that chat_id is required for get but not search). For a multi-function tool with significant behavioral aspects, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions that search supports '关键词匹配群名称、群成员' (keyword matching group names and members) and get retrieves '详细信息' (detailed information), but these are already implied by parameter names and schema descriptions. No additional syntax, format, or constraint details are provided.

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: '以用户身份调用飞书群聊管理工具' (Invoke Feishu group chat management tools as a user) and lists two specific actions (search and get). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like feishu_chat_members by focusing on group-level operations rather than member management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other chat-related tools in the sibling list.

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 context by specifying two actions and their purposes (search for finding groups, get for detailed information). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like feishu_search_user or feishu_chat_members, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative context.

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