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

With no annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral info: append-only, non-destructive operation (no delete/overwrite/clear), and support for Markdown/plain text/tables. It covers key traits but omits error handling or auth requirements.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loads the action and immediately clarifies what the tool does and does not do. Every word earns its place.

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 simple append tool with two well-described parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, and content types. No 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by specifying 'tables' alongside Markdown/plain text for content, and 'at the end' for the append behavior. This enhances the schema's meaning.

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 appends Markdown, plain text, or tables to the end of a Feishu document. It uses a specific verb ('append') and resource ('Feishu document'), and distinguishes from siblings like update by explicitly stating no deletion or overwrite.

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 clarifies when to use (to add content without affecting existing content) and what it avoids (no delete/overwrite/clear). It implicitly suggests not using for replacement, but does not name alternatives explicitly. With sibling tools listed, the guidance is adequate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and that it copies all components, but fails to mention any side effects, permission requirements, or limitations. For a mutation tool, more details are needed.

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. It is front-loaded with the method and then describes the action. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

While the tool has a clear purpose and schema descriptions, the description does not cover behavioral aspects or output expectations. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but additional context about prerequisites or the effect on the source template would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The overall description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for each parameter are clear and adequate.

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 explicitly states the action (creating a new dashboard by copying), the resource (an existing dashboard template), and the extent (copies all components). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read or create, as none other perform a copy operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not directive.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes that the formula is submitted 'as-is', but fails to mention mutation effects, authorization requirements, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with 4 required parameters and an output schema. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), validation behavior, or error handling. It is adequate but lacks completeness for a creation tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions (e.g., 'formula_expression' is similarly described). Baseline 3 applies as no additional value is contributed.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'formula field in Bitable table', and specifies that the formula expression is submitted as-is in Feishu syntax. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings with similar names.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with other field creation tools. The user must infer usage from synthetic context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a two-step behavior (query/validate then create), which is helpful. However, it does not detail error handling, side effects, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is moderate.

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 sentence in Chinese, efficiently conveying the two-step process. It is concise with no redundant words, though it could be structured into clearer segments. Still, it earns its place.

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?

Despite the complexity of dynamic fields and the validation step, the description is sparse. It does not mention the output schema (which exists) or clarify what happens if validation fails. The reference to querying field structure is present but incomplete without specifying that list_feishu_bitable_fields is the tool for that. Lacks sufficient context for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on 'fields' object structure or valid values. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it first queries the Bitable field structure, validates field names, types, options, and read-only attributes, then creates a new record. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feishu_bitable_records (read) and update_feishu_bitable_record (modify).

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 implies a precondition (validate fields first) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or context about prerequisites like having queried field structure beforehand. The guidance is adequate but not thorough.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the creation is destructive, if it overrides existing views, permission requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. The description only states the action without clarifying behavior beyond creation.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to include more context.

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?

The tool has four parameters (three required), an output schema, and no enums. The description does not mention return values or confirmation, but the output schema partially compensates. Behavioral details like default view type or conflict handling are missing, making it adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a view in a specified table and lists the view types (grid, kanban, gallery, gantt, or form). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_feishu_bitable_record or create_feishu_bitable_formula_field by specifying the resource type (view). However, it lacks further differentiation about what a view represents in Feishu Bitable.

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 alternatives, such as other creation tools. There are no when-not use cases or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states the action without contextual usage advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic behavior (create and convert Markdown to blocks), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every character contributes to understanding the tool's 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 tool's simplicity (2 params, schema coverage 100%, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers the creation and conversion behavior. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema. Slight gaps in error handling or duplicate behavior are minor.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The overall description adds value by explicitly noting that tables are supported in content, which is not stated in the parameter description. This provides clear context beyond schema.

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 creates a Feishu document and converts Markdown content (including tables) to Feishu blocks. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes from sibling tools like read, update, and append.

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 using this tool (create document with Markdown). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the sibling tools context makes the usage clear. No exclusions are needed.

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

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses paginated behavior and output purpose, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with key action and output, no unnecessary words.

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?

Description is brief for a paginated list tool with output schema. It lacks explanation of how block_id is used (e.g., for copying dashboards) and does not describe pagination mechanics. Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for first-time users.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema for parameters; it only states output purpose without detailing parameter usage. Minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states the action (paginated query) and resource (Bitable dashboards), and specifies the output (block_id for copying templates). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on documents, fields, records, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned. Sibling tool 'copy_feishu_bitable_dashboard' likely uses the returned block_id, but this relationship is not stated.

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

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

Discloses pagination and returned data (structure, type, options, writability), but lacks details on pagination defaults, limits, or side effects. Since no annotations exist, description partially fulfills 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. Description covers core functionality but lacks usage guidelines and pagination specifics. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in Chinese. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 it is a paginated query for field structure, type, options, and writability, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list records or list dashboards.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list records or create fields. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses pagination support, filter capability, and that the result includes record_id for updates. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of filter_expression and return value.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key features without extraneous information.

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 pagination and filtering, the description provides sufficient context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description adds context about filtering to locate target rows and returning record_id, which enhances understanding of parameter usage.

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 paginates Feishu Bitable records, with optional filter expressions, and returns record IDs for updates. This distinguishes it from siblings like create/update/list fields.

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 implicitly indicates usage for reading records with pagination and filtering. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the context from siblings (create, update) makes its role clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what is returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. Minimal transparency beyond inputs.

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, concise sentence front-loaded with the action and output types. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema and a single required parameter, the description sufficiently describes the tool's purpose and output. However, it lacks context about preconditions like document existence or access permissions.

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% for the single parameter. The description merely repeats the schema's description of '飞书 Docx 文档 ID', adding no new semantic meaning.

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 reads a Feishu document and returns title, Markdown body, and original block structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, append, and bitable-related tools.

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 implies usage for reading a document, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create, update). No exclusion criteria or prerequisite information is provided.

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

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

The description reveals that it reads the real-time field structure before updating, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention permissions, error handling, or whether it overwrites or merges fields.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence states verb+resource, second provides critical usage detail. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Has output schema and 100% schema coverage. Description adds key behavioral nuance about select fields. Missing minor context like expected return format or error cases, but still solid.

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 already describes all parameters. The description adds valuable semantics: how to format values for single-select (string) and multi-select (array) fields, which is not in schema.

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 (update a Bitable row via record_id) and provides specific details about handling select fields. It distinguishes from siblings like create_* because it focuses on updating existing records.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_feishu_bitable_record). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a destructive full replacement (全量替换) and supports Markdown with tables. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error handling, leaving room for improvement.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words and efficiently conveys the tool's 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: action, input format, and scope of replacement. It does not explain error cases or output structure, but since output schema exists, it is not required. For a tool with no annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'content' parameter supports Markdown with tables (含表格), which is not fully captured in the schema description. This modest addition justifies a 4.

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 that the tool uses Markdown (including tables) to fully replace the body of the specified Feishu document. The specific verb 'replace' and resource 'Feishu document body' distinguish it from sibling tools like read, create, and append.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_feishu_document' or 'create_feishu_document'. It only implies usage for full replacement, but lacks when-not-to or alternative context.

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