dingtalk-wiki-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (get department member list) without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), or response format. For a read operation with pagination, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient phrase '获取部门成员列表' that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool has 3 parameters (including pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the pagination mechanism (cursor-based), what the response contains, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that returns lists with pagination, the description should provide more context about how to use it effectively.

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%, with all parameters ('dept_id', 'cursor', 'size') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '获取部门成员列表' (Get department member list) clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource '部门成员列表' (department member list), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'list_departments', but the resource specificity is clear. This is better than vague or tautological descriptions.

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 doesn't mention when to use 'get_department_users' instead of 'get_user_info' for individual user details or 'list_departments' for department metadata. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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