batch_get_bitable_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the 100-record limit, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if some IDs are invalid), response format specifics, or whether it's idempotent. For a batch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, return) and uses minimal sentences. Each part earns its place: the purpose statement includes the key constraint (100-record limit), and parameter/return sections are directly helpful. Slight room for improvement in flow, but overall efficient.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose and parameters semantically. However, for a batch read tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context like error handling or performance notes to be fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief Chinese explanations that add meaning: 'app_token' as the table's token, 'table_id' as the data table ID, and 'record_ids' as a list of record IDs. This clarifies their roles beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't specify formats (e.g., ID length/pattern) or constraints beyond the implied array for record_ids.

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 action ('批量获取' = batch get) and resource ('多维表格记录' = multi-dimensional table records), with the specific scope of '最多100条' (up to 100 records). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_bitable_records' by focusing on retrieval by specific IDs rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with individual record retrieval tools.

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 implies usage when needing to fetch multiple records by their IDs (up to 100), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_bitable_records' for filtering or individual get operations. No guidance on prerequisites, error conditions, or performance considerations is provided.

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