feishu_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it warns that write is '高危,请谨慎使用' (high-risk, use cautiously), explains automatic parsing of URLs/tokens for all actions except create, describes default behaviors (e.g., no range reads first sheet entirely), and notes export format constraints. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed error handling, but provides substantial operational 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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured: it starts with a general statement, then a product comparison, then action details. Some sentences are redundant (e.g., range info repeated). While informative, it could be more front-loaded with core purpose and key warnings, and some details could be trimmed or integrated more efficiently.

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 (18 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers core actions, warnings, and some defaults, but lacks details on return values, error cases, authentication requirements, and comprehensive usage scenarios. It compensates somewhat for the lack of annotations but doesn't fully address all contextual gaps for a multi-action tool.

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 at 94%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying parameter usage in context (e.g., URL vs spreadsheet_token parsing, range defaults, sheet_id for csv export), but doesn't extensively explain semantics beyond what the schema descriptions already cover for most parameters.

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 as a Feishu spreadsheet tool supporting create, read/write, find, and export operations. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that spreadsheets are different from bitable/airtable products, and lists 7 specific actions with brief explanations, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 context about when to use certain features (e.g., '除 create 外' for URL parsing, 'csv 必须指定 sheet_id' for export), and distinguishes spreadsheets from bitables. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools like feishu_bitable_app or feishu_drive_file, missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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