dingtalk-wiki-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, what format the detailed information returns, if there are rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid user IDs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks supporting 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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While the purpose is clear, it lacks crucial context: no output format information, no behavioral traits disclosure, no usage differentiation from sibling tools, and no indication of what '详细信息' (detailed information) actually includes. For even a simple read tool, this leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with 'userid' clearly documented as '用户 ID' (user ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with extra context about parameter usage or constraints.

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 '获取用户详细信息' (Get user detailed information) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('user detailed information'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_department_users' or 'set_operator' - it's vague about what specific user information is retrieved versus other user-related operations.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'get_department_users' (which might retrieve multiple users), or any context about required permissions or system state. The agent receives no usage differentiation from sibling tools.

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