bitable_list_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'get all fields' and does not disclose pagination behavior, permission requirements, or whether all fields are returned in a single call or page-by-page. The schema reveals page_size/page_token, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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, compact sentence that states the core function without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context that could help the agent.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, pagination semantics, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow (e.g., you would first list tables then list fields). For a tool with pagination parameters, some mention of paging behavior is expected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning about how parameters relate to the operation, but it also does not need to compensate since the schema is fully descriptive. 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 clearly states the action ('获取') and the resource ('多维表格数据表的所有字段'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitable_list_tables by targeting fields rather than table metadata.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools such as bitable_list_tables or bitable_search_records. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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