lark_get_agenda

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'view', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, return format, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety profile from annotations.

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 a single, short phrase that is direct and free of redundancy. It is appropriately sized for conveying the basic purpose, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

While the schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral disclosure. It does not explain when to use this tool relative to siblings or what to expect from the operation, making the overall context incomplete for an agent.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (start, end, calendar_id) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 '查看飞书日程安排' clearly states the tool's purpose: to view Feishu agenda/schedule. It uses a specific verb (view) and resource (agenda), and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools focused on messaging and chats. However, it lacks scope details such as date range or calendar behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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