feishu_auth_status

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

The description adds the security-relevant behavior of not exposing secrets, which is meaningful given the lack of annotations. 'Report' also implies a read-only operation, but side effects, failure modes, or return structure are not disclosed, keeping this at a moderate level.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action ('Report') and the object, and the qualifier 'without exposing secrets' adds essential safety context without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 description is sufficient for a no-parameter status tool but omits any mention of the output format or how this relates to feishu_read_resource. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, a bit more detail on when to use this tool 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?

With zero parameters in the input schema, the description has no parameter details to convey. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose instead.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as 'configured Feishu access paths', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling feishu_read_resource. It also qualifies the operation with 'without exposing secrets', adding valuable context about the tool's purpose.

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 feishu_read_resource. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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