dingtalk_report_create

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It names the action (submit) and report types, but omits side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or response/return behavior, which is important for a write tool.

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 sentence with no redundant wording; it successfully front-loads the core action. It is not bloated, though it could include more guidance without much length.

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 has no annotated safety profile, no output schema, and the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., fetching template details for JSON structure), invocation flow, or expected result. Given the required template_name parameter, contextual completeness is lacking for reliable agent use.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: template_name and contents both have descriptions, including the JSON format requirement for contents. The description adds only general context (daily/weekly) and does not need to add further parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '提交一份日志（日报/周报等）' clearly indicates a submission action for a report/log resource with daily/weekly scope. It distinguishes from sibling list/send tools by the verb 'submit/create', though it does not explicitly contrast with report_sent.

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?

No usage context is provided: there is no indication of when to choose this tool over other report-related tools, or that a template must be selected beforehand. The description only states the action and gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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