lark_chat_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'create group and bind' but does not explain what 'bind' entails, nor does it address permissions, side effects, or return behavior. For a tool with create and list actions, more detail is needed.

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, concise line that efficiently lists all actions. It is front-loaded with the tool purpose. Some may prefer more structure, but it is not verbose and every word earns its place.

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 complexity (three actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks return value information, error handling hints, and differentiation from sibling tools. The 'bind' concept is left undefined. More context is needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 sufficiently documents parameters. The tool description adds the context that 'name' is required for create and 'query' for find, but this is already implied by the schema descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 is for Feishu single chat sessions and lists three distinct actions (list, find, create) with brief explanations. Specific verbs ('list', 'search', 'create') and resources ('groups') are provided, giving a clear purpose. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from named sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools (lark_chat_progress, etc.) or when to choose among the three actions. The description simply lists the actions without contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action names alone.

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