feishu_task_tasklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it lists actions (create, get, list, tasks, patch, add_members), it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during mutations (e.g., whether updates are reversible). For a multi-action tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 two sentences: first stating the tool's purpose and usage context, then listing all available actions. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (7 parameters, 6 actions) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't address behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling. For a multi-action tool without structured support, this leaves the agent with incomplete operational understanding.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it just lists action names without explaining their parameter dependencies or usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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: '飞书任务清单管理工具' (Feishu task list management tool) with specific actions like create, get, list, tasks, patch, add_members. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feishu_task_task (individual tasks) and feishu_task_subtask by focusing on task lists rather than individual tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the same domain.

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 for when to use this tool: '当用户要求创建/查询/管理清单、查看清单内的任务时使用' (when users request creating/querying/managing lists, viewing tasks within lists). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to understand its primary use cases.

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