读取飞书文档

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 discloses automatic routing between docx and wiki links, the return format (Markdown), and the JSON structure with document_id/revision_id/content. It also explains the effect of different scope values (outline, section, keyword) and detail levels. It doesn't mention rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior, but for a read tool the disclosed behavior is quite thorough.

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 in a dense but organized way. It packs a lot of information into a few sentences without redundancy. Minor deduction because the parameter interaction details (e.g., keyword with 'a|b') could be seen as schema territory, but overall it's 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?

For a read tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main usage patterns, return format, and routing behavior. It doesn't explain error cases, pagination, or auth prerequisites, but the sibling check_feishu_auth exists for auth. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for common scenarios.

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 8 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the workflow: scope=outline for structure first, section needs start_block_id, keyword supports 'a|b' branches, and detail=with-ids is needed for later partial updates. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions and helps an agent understand how parameters interact.

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 states a specific verb ('读取' / read), a clear resource (飞书云文档), and explicitly distinguishes between document links (/docx/) and wiki links (/wiki/) with automatic routing. It also names the return format (Markdown) and the JSON structure, making it immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from siblings like read_feishu_sheet or read_feishu_base_records.

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 explicit usage guidance: it recommends using scope=outline first to see the structure, explains when to use section (needs block id), and mentions keyword positioning. It also implies when to use this tool vs alternatives by focusing on document content reading, while siblings handle sheets and base records. The routing note for /docx/ vs /wiki/ links is a clear when-to-use signal.

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