dingtalk_minutes_list_mine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'list' (a read operation) but gives no detail about what is returned (e.g., full minutes vs. metadata), pagination behavior, or any authorization needs. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. It wastes no words, though it could optionally mention the parameters or usage context without becoming verbose. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 and no annotations, the description should clarify what the list returns and how it relates to sibling minutes tools. It does neither. The simplicity of the tool (two optional params) helps, but the lack of context about return values and usage boundaries leaves the description incomplete for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (count, keyword). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. It does not need to compensate further.

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 action ('list') and the resource ('AI listening notes (meeting minutes)') with a scope qualifier ('created by me'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool dingtalk_minutes_list_shared, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 scope '我创建的' implies this is for the user's own minutes, and sibling names like dingtalk_minutes_list_shared suggest a split between 'mine' and 'shared'. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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