feishu_read_document

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool reads content but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool that accesses external resources, this is a significant gap in 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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the core purpose, second sentence covers input options and output formats. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this tool's complexity.

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?

For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters well, but lacks information about authentication, error handling, rate limits, and what the return structure looks like (beyond format types).

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions supporting document IDs or URLs and output formats, but the schema already covers these details comprehensively. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('读取' - read), target resource ('飞书文档内容' - Feishu document content), and distinguishes from siblings like feishu_get_document_info (which likely returns metadata) and feishu_update_content (which modifies content). It specifies both input types (ID or URL) and output formats (Markdown or JSON).

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: to read document content in specific formats. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools suggest clear distinctions (e.g., use feishu_get_document_info for metadata, feishu_update_content for modifications).

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