replyMessageFeishu

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. It mentions the reply_in_thread behavior, which is useful, but doesn't cover other critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (since no output schema exists). For a mutation tool (replying modifies chat state) with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences in Chinese, front-loading the core purpose and adding a key parameter detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return values, and full parameter semantics. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent, especially compared to richer sibling tools in the list.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only explains one parameter (reply_in_thread) and hints at message_id and content (via '回复指定 message_id 的消息'), but doesn't cover msg_type, uuid, or provide details on content format or message_id sourcing. It adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, insufficient to compensate for the low coverage.

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: '回复指定 message_id 的消息' (reply to a specific message with message_id). It specifies the verb (reply) and resource (message), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sendMessageFeishu' or 'listMessagesFeishu' beyond the 'reply' action. The mention of Feishu IM provides some context, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 with 'reply_in_thread=true 时在话题里回复' (when reply_in_thread=true, reply in a thread), which implies when to use this parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sendMessageFeishu' (which might be for new messages) or 'listMessagesFeishu' (for reading). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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