读取多维表格记录

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return shape (object array with record_id and field values), filtering operators, sorting, projection, pagination, and token formats. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation (though the name implies it).

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists capabilities and prerequisites in a logical order. It packs substantial information into two sentences without redundancy, though the operator list is long and could be considered dense.

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 read tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format, filtering, sorting, projection, pagination, and token handling. It lacks explicit mention of pagination limits beyond the schema's limit parameter, but the schema covers that. The prerequisite reference to describe_feishu_base completes the usage 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds context about base_token URL formats and the prerequisite for table_id/field names, but most parameter semantics are already in the schema. Baseline 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 tool reads Feishu bitable records and returns an object array with record_id and field values. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming describe_feishu_base as a prerequisite and by listing filtering/sorting/projection/pagination capabilities, which separates it from read_feishu_doc and read_feishu_sheet.

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 explicitly instructs to first use describe_feishu_base to obtain table_id and field names, and explains base_token accepts URL, wiki URL, or bare token. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite step, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for exclusion.

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