dingtalk_oa_approval_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns form fields, status, and workflow, which is meaningful behavioral information for a read-only detail retrieval tool. It does not mention permissions or response format, but that is not a critical gap for a simple view operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical enumeration of key detail categories. It contains zero redundant words and is easily scannable.

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 1-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both the tool's purpose and the expected return content (form fields, status, workflow). The schema covers the parameter, and the description confirms the return value, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 only parameter (instance_id) is already fully described in the schema as '审批流程实例 ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage 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 "查看审批单详情（表单字段、状态、流程）" clearly states the action (view) and resource (approval details), and enumerates the specific content dimensions (form fields, status, workflow). This distinguishes it from sibling approval tools that list, approve, or reject.

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 use when you need the details of a specific approval instance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list/approve/reject tools. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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