dingtalk_drive_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'get metadata' without disclosing return format, whether both files and folders are covered, permission requirements, or error behavior. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence directly stating purpose, front-loaded with the verb, and no unnecessary words. Exactly as concise as needed for this 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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description conveys the primary use. However, it does not detail what metadata fields are returned, which could be helpful. Still, it is not severely under-specified for a basic metadata retrieval.

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 description coverage is 100% with file_id described as '文件或文件夹 ID'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 uses precise verb '获取' (get) and specifies the resource '钉盘文件/文件夹的元数据' (metadata of DingTalk Drive files/folders), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like drive_download or drive_mkdir.

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 guidance on when to choose this over related drive tools. It doesn't mention whether it applies to specific file types, when to use instead of dingtalk_doc_info, or any prerequisites for using this tool.

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