feishu_list_blocks

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. While it mentions the tool lists Blocks and can be used to get Block IDs, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output returns, whether there are pagination considerations, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates both the tool's purpose and its usage context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 relative simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and why to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format and behavioral characteristics that would be important for an AI agent to properly invoke and interpret results from this tool. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (document_id), so the schema already documents this parameter completely. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 action ('列出' - list) and resource ('飞书文档中的所有 Block' - all Blocks in Feishu document), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like feishu_read_document by focusing on Block-level structure rather than document content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with feishu_get_document_info which might also provide structural information.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '用于了解文档结构或获取特定 Block ID 进行后续操作' (for understanding document structure or obtaining specific Block IDs for subsequent operations). This gives practical guidance about the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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