feishu_read_resource

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It communicates that this is a read operation and mentions API or browser mode, but it fails to explain authentication requirements, what data is returned, or what the two modes actually entail.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words and front-loads the verb and target resources. It is concise, though slightly too terse to fully cover the parameter space.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential context: how to choose kind/mode, authentication needs, and expected return value. It is too minimal to fully guide an agent beyond the initial call.

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 only 33% and the description must compensate. While it lists the resource types from the 'kind' enum, it does not explain the 'mode' values (user/tenant) or the 'auto' defaults, and it omits parameter syntax or relationships.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource types (wiki, docx, sheet, bitable URL), making it clear what the tool operates on. It also distinguishes itself from the only sibling (feishu_auth_status), which checks auth status rather than reading resources.

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 phrase 'Read a Feishu... URL' implies when to use it, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned. The description does not clarify when to prefer API versus browser mode, or when 'auto' kind/mode is appropriate.

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