dingtalk-wiki-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('get details') without mentioning whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, 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 a single phrase ('获取知识库节点详情'), which is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses a point for potentially insufficient detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, the return format, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns structured node information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the single parameter 'node_id' documented as '节点 ID' (node ID). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取知识库节点详情' translates to 'Get knowledge base node details', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what constitutes 'details' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_workspace' or 'list_wiki_nodes'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what information is retrieved.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_wiki_nodes' (for listing) or 'get_wiki_workspace' (for workspace-level details). Users must 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.