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. It states the tool lists workspaces based on user permissions, but does not describe the return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), error conditions, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks details needed for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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, clear sentence in Chinese: '列出用户有权限的知识库工作空间列表'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant words, and is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool. Every part of the sentence 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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but omits details like return values or usage context. For a listing tool with no behavioral annotations, it should ideally include more about the output format or permissions handling to be fully complete.

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 'operator_id' documented as '操作者 unionid（不传则使用之前设置的）' (operator unionid, if not passed, use previously set). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not mention parameters at all. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '列出用户有权限的知识库工作空间列表' (List wiki workspaces the user has permission to access). It specifies the verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('知识库工作空间' - wiki workspaces), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_workspace' (singular) or 'search_wiki', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_wiki_workspace' (which might fetch a single workspace) or 'search_wiki' (which might filter results), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing to set an operator first (implied by the parameter description but not stated in the tool description).

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