dingtalk_doc_info

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 repeats the general functionality and lists metadata fields, without revealing potential errors (e.g., invalid doc_id), permissions required, whether the path is absolute/relative, or if the tool handles both docs and files uniformly. This is insufficient for an agent to predict 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, well-structured Chinese sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific metadata fields. Every word contributes; there is no wasted content.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description omits important context such as possible error conditions, whether the metadata list is exhaustive or examples, and any relationship to sibling doc/drive tools. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 describes the single parameter doc_id as '文档 ID' (document ID), so coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that the ID refers to a document/file and that its metadata is being retrieved, but this is largely redundant with the tool name and schema. Thus baseline 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 a specific action ('获取' - get) on a specific resource ('文档/文件' - documents/files) and enumerates the returned metadata fields (title, type, owner, path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dingtalk_doc_read (which likely retrieves content) and dingtalk_drive_info (which is drive-specific).

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_read or dingtalk_drive_info. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, fallback tools, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the general purpose.

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