dingtalk_minutes_get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic get behavior and content type (summary) but does not disclose potential access requirements, return format, or behavior for invalid IDs. The description adds no context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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 with no filler words, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though so minimal it borders on under-specification, which prevents a perfect score.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain when to use this instead of other minutes tools, nor does it describe the summary's contents or any edge-case behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 fully documents the single required parameter minutes_id with description '听记 ID'. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the AI-generated smart summary of a minutes/recording using the verb '获取' (get) and the specific resource 'AI 听记的智能摘要'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dingtalk_minutes_get_transcription (full transcript) and dingtalk_minutes_get_todos (action items).

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 choosing this for a concise summary rather than the full transcription, nor does it reference any sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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