dingtalk_chat_send_by_webhook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and mechanism, without any mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, failure behavior, or the nature of the message (e.g., whether it supports markdown). This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and mechanism, and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its low complexity.

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?

Despite having 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits important context such as when to use this tool versus sibling send tools, and what the caller should expect on success or failure. The lack of annotations makes this gap more severe, so the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., 'Webhook token (access_token 的值, 必填)'). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to parameters, but since the schema already covers them, a 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 the tool sends a group chat message using a custom robot webhook token, specifying both the resource (group chat) and the method (webhook token). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like dingtalk_chat_send_by_bot or dingtalk_chat_send_message, so it misses the top score.

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 when you have a custom robot webhook token, but provides no explicit context about when to prefer this over other send-message tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. There is some implied guidance from the 'via webhook token' phrasing, but no clear direction.

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