dingtalk_ding_message_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the high-priority nature and delivery options, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential costs of SMS/phone, irreversibility, or recipient requirements, leaving gaps for a notification 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by key attributes. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward send operation with a fully described schema, the description provides adequate context regarding priority and delivery modes. It does not need to explain return values since no output schema exists, but it could mention response/error behavior for full completeness.

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 each parameter described (type, users, content, robot_code). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline score 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 action ('发送' = send) and the resource ('DING 消息' = DING message), and adds '高优先级通知' (high-priority notification) to indicate its distinct purpose. This differentiates it from generic chat send tools among siblings, though it could be more explicit about the targeting mechanism.

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 high-priority notifications and lists delivery modes (in-app/SMS/phone), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dingtalk_chat_send_message or provide any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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