lark_reply_message

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says 'reply,' offering no information about permissions, failure modes, rate limits, notification behavior, or whether it creates a new thread message. The is_thread parameter hints at thread behavior, but the description does not explain it. This is severely under-specified.

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 short ('回复飞书消息'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks the necessary elaboration for a tool with four parameters and multiple options. Under-specification is not a virtue; the description should contain enough detail to be useful, and this one does not.

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 has four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal to provide adequate context. It does not explain thread behavior, message types beyond schema hints, or how it differs from lark_send_message. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates return-value concerns, but the description still lacks critical usage and behavioral context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, providing baseline meaning for each field. The tool description adds no additional explanation beyond what the schema already states, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not enriched. The schema itself clarifies msg_type options and is_thread default, which is sufficient.

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 '回复飞书消息' clearly states the action (reply) and the resource (Lark message). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling lark_send_message. Since the verb 'reply' implies responding to an existing message, it is reasonably distinct, but could be more explicit about the target being an existing message ID.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus lark_send_message or other siblings. It does not mention thread behavior, prerequisites, or alternative use cases. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the schema alone.

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