dingtalk_oa_approval_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (current user) and output type (ID list), but does not mention pagination, ordering, error behavior, or authentication needs. Basic context is present but not rich enough for a higher score.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes meaning and nothing is wasted. Highly concise and well-structured for a 0-parameter tool.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose but omits any detail on how the output list is returned (e.g., pagination, limits) and fails to differentiate from the sibling 'dingtalk_oa_approval_list_pending'.

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, so per rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids adding anything about parameters since there are none to explain.

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 uses the verb '列出' (list) with a specific resource ('当前用户的待审批任务') and output ('ID列表'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'dingtalk_oa_approval_list_pending', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar sibling tool 'dingtalk_oa_approval_list_pending'. No contextual hints, prerequisites, or alternative comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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