get_feishu_document_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only the title is returned and not the document content, which is a key behavioral trait. It also discloses support for two document types. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, but for a simple metadata read operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and include necessary details (ID/URL input, no content return, document type support) without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it doesn't do, and input requirements. It could optionally mention the exact return format or behavior for invalid IDs, but the current description is sufficient for most AI use cases.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter (document_id) as accepting an ID or full URL and supporting both regular and wiki documents. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema covers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves metadata (specifically the title) of a Feishu document, distinguishing it from the sibling tool by explicitly noting it does not return document content. This is a specific verb+resource+scope definition that leaves no ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context: it accepts a document ID or full URL and supports both regular and Wiki documents. It also implies the alternative use case by stating it doesn't return content, but does not explicitly name 'read_feishu_document' as the alternative for content retrieval.

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