dingtalk_chat_message_list

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 discloses the scope (group chat only) and that it fetches recent messages, but does not mention return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or any access prerequisites. For a read-only fetch tool, the lack of destructive behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 leads with the verb and resource, then adds the critical scope limitation. No filler or redundant wording.

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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description adequately conveys purpose and scope. There is no output schema, but the description's 'recent message records' plus parameter definitions give a workable picture, though it could be more complete by noting return value shape or ordering.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (group_id and limit). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: group_id is already described as '群聊 openConversationId（必填）' and limit as '消息数量，默认 50'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 fetches recent message records from a specified group chat. It differentiates itself from single-chat messaging by explicitly saying group chat only and directing users to 'list-direct' for single chats, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (group chats) and when not to (single chats, pointing to list-direct). This gives clear usage guidance relative to alternatives, even though it doesn't contrast with other message-list siblings.

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