dingtalk_attendance_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns summary statistics (late, early leave, absence, overtime), which is useful context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, default behavior for omitted parameters, or any output format details.

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 front-loads the action and resource, with the statistics list in parentheses. Every word contributes value, 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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and result scope (late, early leave, absence, overtime). It adequately differentiates from the record-level attendance tool, though it could explicitly mention the default current-user behavior, which is already documented in the schema.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both user_id and year_month, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 '获取用户考勤汇总' (get user attendance summary) with specific statistics listed (late, early leave, absence, overtime). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dingtalk_attendance_record_get' by focusing on the summary rather than individual 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 implies usage for obtaining attendance summary statistics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'dingtalk_attendance_record_get'. It provides no exclusions or alternative names, so usage context is only inferred.

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