dingtalk_chat_send_by_bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the group vs. single chat targeting behavior but omits important aspects such as permission requirements, what happens if both group_id and users are provided, or the return value. It is not misleading, but it only partially discloses behavioral traits.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and immediately provides the key decision rule for parameter selection. There is no waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite brief. It covers the primary distinction between group and single chat but does not clarify that at least one of group_id or users is required (schema marks them optional), nor does it mention precedence if both are provided or any response behavior. These gaps make the description only moderately complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by mapping group_id to group chats and users to single chats, clarifying which parameter to use in which scenario—information not explicitly stated in the schema itself (though implied by field descriptions). This extra guidance elevates the score.

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 purpose: '以机器人身份向群聊或单聊发送消息' (send messages as a bot to group chats or single chats). It identifies the specific verb (send), resource (chat via bot), and scope (group vs. single), distinguishing it from sibling tools like webhook or general message send.

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 explicit context on when to use group_id vs. users ('发群聊用 group_id；发单聊用 users'), giving clear usage direction. However, it does not contrast with alternative tools (e.g., send_by_webhook) or mention when not to use this tool, only a mild gap from a full 5.

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