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 only states the action ('搜索') without detailing how the search works (e.g., case sensitivity, pagination, error handling), what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 ('搜索知识库内容') that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose.

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 complexity of a search operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the search behavior, result format, or error conditions. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('keyword' as search term, 'workspace_id' as optional knowledge base ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 '搜索知识库内容' (search knowledge base content) states the basic action and resource but lacks specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'list_wiki_nodes' or 'get_wiki_node', nor does it clarify what type of search it performs (full-text, keyword matching, etc.). The purpose is understandable but vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_wiki_nodes' or 'get_wiki_node'. The description implies searching content, but it doesn't specify use cases (e.g., for finding specific documents vs. browsing), prerequisites, or exclusions. Without this, the agent must infer usage from context alone.

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