lark_list_chats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' and provides no information about pagination, result ordering, or scope (e.g., only chats joined by the bot). The schema documents pagination parameters, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly redundant ('list...列表') but remains concise and easily scannable.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the minimal description is almost sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of pagination semantics or filtering/scope beyond 'group chats', leaving some gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100%: both page_size and page_token have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the action, so the baseline 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 '列出飞书群聊列表' clearly states the action (list) and resource (Feishu group chats), distinguishing it from siblings like lark_list_messages and lark_get_chat_members. The slight redundancy in wording does not obscure the intended purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only states the action, without indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lark_list_messages or lark_get_chat_members. The agent must infer context from the name and sibling list alone.

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