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 indicates this is a read-only operation ('显示' means display/show) and specifies what information is returned (configuration, default user, knowledge base list). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, and every part of the sentence ('显示当前配置信息' and the parenthetical detail) adds value by clarifying what configuration data is included.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and what data it returns, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to siblings. For a configuration display tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete by addressing when to use it versus other tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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: '显示当前配置信息（默认用户和知识库列表）' translates to 'Display current configuration information (default user and knowledge base list)'. This specifies the verb 'display' and the resource 'configuration information' with additional details about what configuration data is included. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'list_wiki_workspaces', which might also retrieve configuration-related data.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' (which might retrieve user details) or 'list_wiki_workspaces' (which might list workspaces). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone without explicit direction.

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