feishu_wiki_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the three action types and provides important implementation notes about obtaining space_id. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during creation (e.g., permissions, default settings). The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a multi-action tool.

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 reasonably concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's purpose, listing actions, and providing important implementation notes. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The Chinese/English mixing is slightly distracting but doesn't significantly impact clarity. No wasted sentences, though it could be more structured.

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 a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context about actions and space_id sourcing. However, it doesn't explain return values, error handling, or action-specific requirements. Given the complexity (multiple actions with different parameter needs) and lack of structured behavioral annotations, the description should do more to guide proper usage across all three action types.

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 doesn't add parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions space_id sourcing but doesn't explain parameter dependencies (e.g., which parameters are required for which actions). The schema already documents most parameters well, so the description's minimal parameter guidance is adequate but not additive.

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: '飞书知识空间管理工具' (Feishu knowledge space management tool) and lists three specific actions (list, get, create). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'feishu_wiki_space_node' by focusing on space-level operations rather than node-level. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other wiki/search 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 provides some usage context: '当用户要求查看知识库列表、获取知识库信息、创建知识库时使用' (use when users request to view knowledge base lists, get knowledge base information, or create knowledge bases). It also offers important notes about obtaining space_id. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'feishu_search_doc_wiki' or clarify boundaries between space management and document operations.

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