dingtalk_attendance_record_get

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb '查询' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention any required permissions, potential pagination, or the format of returned records. It is 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or 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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not explain what the returned records look like or when this tool is preferred over the related 'dingtalk_attendance_summary'. It is adequate for a basic query tool but not rich with supporting context.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (user_id, start_date, end_date). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making it a baseline score of 3.

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 '查询用户的打卡记录' clearly states the action (query) and the resource (attendance records). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'dingtalk_attendance_summary', which likely provides aggregated attendance data rather than raw 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dingtalk_attendance_summary'. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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