lark_chat_stream

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the basic lifecycle (open, append, close) but lacks details on side effects, destructive actions, auth requirements, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the schema.

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 very concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main idea. However, the phrasing is somewhat cryptic and in Chinese, which slightly reduces clarity for English agents.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on the relationship with sibling tools (except watch), failure modes, and the overall workflow. Leaves many questions unanswered.

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 base score is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it only implicitly references action and stream_id. No improvement beyond baseline.

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 the tool is for streaming cards (CardKit) with actions append and close, and mentions watch for stream_id. It distinguishes from watch but not from other siblings like progress or session. The purpose is clear but not fully explicit.

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 context: 'watch 已开卡时用返回的 stream_id' indicates it's for after watch opens a card. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides when-not-to-use conditions.

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