dingtalk_calendar_event_suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'recommend available time slots,' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, how many suggestions are returned, or any prerequisites or limitations.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. No filler, and it is appropriately concise for a straightforward recommendation tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves many operational details unaddressed, such as the format of recommendations, whether the tool requires both start_time and end_time, and how errors are handled. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description adds that the recommendation is based on busy/free data and that start/end time define the candidate range, but this is implicit and does not add significant extra meaning beyond the 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's function: recommend available meeting time slots based on participants' busy/free data. It uses a specific verb ('推荐') and resource ('可用会议时间段'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like event_create or busy_search.

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 scheduling meetings, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no comparison to busy_search or event_create, and no exclusions are stated.

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