feishu_get_document_info

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 retrieves basic information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens with invalid document IDs, or the format of the returned information. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies a safe read operation.

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 purpose and examples of retrieved information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behavior. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's for metadata retrieval to distinguish from content reading tools.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. For a read-only tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication needs or error handling to be more complete, but it's not entirely inadequate for such a simple operation.

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% (the single parameter 'document_id' is fully described in the schema as '飞书文档 ID 或 URL' - Feishu document ID or URL). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '获取飞书文档的基本信息' (get basic information of a Feishu document) with specific examples of what information is retrieved ('包括标题、ID、版本号等' - including title, ID, version number, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like feishu_read_document (which likely reads content) and feishu_create_document (which creates documents), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and resource '飞书文档的基本信息' (basic information of Feishu document) are specific.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for metadata only vs. content reading with feishu_read_document) or any prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, there's no explicit context for usage decisions among the sibling tools listed.

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