dingtalk_minutes_list_shared

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action without detailing return format, pagination, or any side effects. The action 'list' suggests read-only, but this is implicit rather than 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool and front-loads the key action and resource.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to know what it lists, but it lacks information about the return format, pagination, or any filtering behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps given the absence of an output schema.

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 zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter details. Per the rubric baseline, 0 params warrants a score of 4 since there is no parameter semantics needed. The description does not mislead or omit anything relevant to parameters.

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 '列出他人共享给我的 AI 听记' clearly states the tool lists AI minutes/transcripts shared to the user by others. The verb 'list' and specific resource (shared AI minutes) make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from the sibling tool 'dingtalk_minutes_list_mine'.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'shared to me', indicating it is for minutes from others, but it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like 'dingtalk_minutes_list_mine' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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