dingtalk_drive_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action (listing files/subfolders) but omits important details such as whether the listing is recursive, whether hidden files are included, pagination behavior, required permissions, or the structure of the return value. This is a minimal description for a read operation, but it lacks the context an agent might need to interpret results correctly.

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 core functionality. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no filler or redundant information.

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 optional parameter, no output schema), and the description clearly indicates the operation. However, it does not specify return value structure, recursion behavior, or any caveats, which could leave the agent uncertain about how to process results. Given the simplicity, the description is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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: parent_id is described as '文件夹 ID（空则列出根目录）' (folder ID; empty lists root). The description itself does not add any parameter-related information, so it relies entirely on the schema. Per calibration, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 tool's function: '列出钉盘文件夹内的文件和子文件夹' (list files and subfolders in the DingTalk Drive folder). It specifies a concrete action (list) and resource (folder contents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dingtalk_drive_info (retrieve drive info), dingtalk_drive_mkdir (create folder), and dingtalk_drive_download (download file).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context. There are no references to sibling tools or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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