dingtalk_contact_dept_list_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, revealing nothing about potential recursion into sub-departments, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the structure of returned data. The agent is left without critical safety or expectation-setting information.

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, short, front-loaded sentence in Chinese. It communicates the essential purpose with zero wasted words, perfectly appropriate for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it omits important context such as whether the member list is paginated, whether it includes sub-departments, and what fields each member object contains. Since no output schema exists, the description should provide more detail about expected results, making this a clear gap.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter dept_id with '部门 ID' (Department ID), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, such as format, where to obtain it, or whether it accepts '0' for the root department. Baseline of 3 is appropriate 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's action: '列出指定部门的所有成员' (list all members of a specified department). The verb '列出' (list) and resource '指定部门的所有成员' (all members of a department) make the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like dingtalk_contact_user_get (single user) and dingtalk_contact_dept_search (search departments).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply implies usage when listing department members, but without explicit context or alternative comparisons, the agent receives no additional decision-making support.

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