dingtalk_oa_approval_list_initiated

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. However, it only restates the basic action (listing initiated approvals) without revealing any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, result scope, or required permissions. This adds no transparency beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words or filler.

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 with no parameters and no output schema. The description gives a basic understanding of the tool's function but does not explain return values, pagination, or any other contextual details. For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema provides no parameter information. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4 since there are no parameters for the description to elaborate on.

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 '列出我发起的审批单' clearly states the tool lists approval requests initiated by the user. The verb 'list' and the resource 'initiated approval requests' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like dingtalk_oa_approval_list_pending, which lists pending approvals.

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 context by specifying '我发起的' (initiated by me), which distinguishes it from pending approvals, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided beyond the implicit distinction visible in sibling names.

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