dingtalk_report_sent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing scope ('sent by self') and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether results are sorted or paginated, or what fields/objects are returned. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an 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 Chinese sentence with no redundant wording and places the core scope ('own sent logs') upfront. It is efficient and front-loaded, though minimal in content.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified: it does not mention the return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or whether all sent reports are always included. The single parameter is well documented, but the overall behavior and result expectations are not complete enough for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'count' with '数量，默认 20', providing adequate meaning at the schema level. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 explicit verb '列出' and identifies the resource as '自己发送的日志' (reports sent by the current user), which clearly indicates an operation to list one's own sent reports. This scoping distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like dingtalk_report_list, though it does not explicitly mention the sibling by name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dingtalk_report_list or dingtalk_report_template_list. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names, so the usage context is only implied by the tool name and brief scope.

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