dingtalk_chat_message_list_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about pagination (分页) and chat type coverage, but omits details like max limit, sorting order, return structure, or any side effects (though this is a read-only operation).

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 core function (time-range search), then adds scope (single+group) and pagination. Every element earns its place with 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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the basic operation. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., message fields) or define 'all' more precisely, leaving an agent with only partial expectation of the result.

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 start, end, and limit all described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reaffirming time range and pagination, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 the specific verb 'search' (搜索) and resource 'historical messages' (历史消息), with explicit scope 'including single and group chats' (包含单聊和群聊). This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates from unread or mention-specific message tools, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives.

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 time-range-based paginated search of historical messages, which is a clear scenario. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like 'dingtalk_chat_message_list' or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity about which list tool to choose.

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