dingtalk_report_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavior such as pagination via the count parameter, the definition of 'received', or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an AI agent.

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 phrase (列出收到的他人日志) with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, achieving maximum clarity in minimal words.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the tool operates in a complex domain with many report-related siblings. The description does not explain what a 'log' is in this context, how to use the count parameter, or when to prefer this tool over others, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema already documents the count parameter with a description ('数量，默认 20') and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) and the resource '收到的他人日志' (received reports from others), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dingtalk_report_sent (sent reports) and dingtalk_report_template_list (templates). Verb and resource are precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what 'received' means in practice (e.g., reports submitted to the user), or how it differs from related report tools. There are no alternatives or exclusions mentioned.

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