dingtalk_doc_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the basic action (search by keyword) without adding context about search scope, return format, pagination, or limitations. This is insufficient for a tool that likely needs to handle result interpretation.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or padding, and the key verb 'search' appears upfront. It is an efficient and well-structured one-liner.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description needs to explain what the tool returns or how the result can be used. It doesn't mention whether it returns a list of document IDs, titles, or content snippets, nor does it clarify if the search covers only accessible documents. This leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke and process the result.

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 has 100% coverage with the parameter 'query' described as 'search keyword', and the description essentially repeats the same phrase ('按关键词搜索'). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no additional value is provided.

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 'Search DingTalk documents by keyword' uses a specific verb (search) and resource (DingTalk documents), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not differentiate from similar search tools like wiki_space_search or devdoc_article_search, which might also search documents, so it loses a point for not explicitly distinguishing among siblings.

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. It does not mention scenarios such as 'Use this to find documents by keyword; use doc_list to list all documents' or exclude any use cases. This leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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