dingtalk_devdoc_article_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states 'search developer documentation' and does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently written and easy to process, though it is minimal. The structure is acceptable 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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what kind of search results to expect (e.g., article titles, links, snippets) or any limitations. An agent would lack critical context for using the tool effectively.

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 schema already documents the sole parameter 'keyword' with '搜索关键词', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not introduce any ambiguity but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 '搜索钉钉开放平台开发者文档' clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (DingTalk Open Platform developer documentation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dingtalk_doc_search (likely for general docs) and dingtalk_wiki_space_search, though it does not explicitly mention 'articles' as the target. Slight ambiguity remains but purpose is clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dingtalk_doc_search or dingtalk_devdoc_error_diagnose. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparative context, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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