dingtalk_report_template_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 implies a read-only listing operation and scopes to the current user, but does not disclose details such as pagination behavior, ordering, authentication requirements, or whether it returns full template definitions or summaries. The word 'list' implies non-mutating behavior, but the description does not explicitly ensure safety.

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 sentence that directly states the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does not explain what fields or structure the returned templates contain. It also fails to mention any possible pagination or limits. While the tool is simple, the description leaves the agent without enough detail to fully anticipate the result format.

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. There is nothing to explain about parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies as no compensation is needed.

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 a specific verb '列出' (list) and a clear resource '日志模板' (log templates), scoped to '当前用户可用' (available to current user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dingtalk_report_list (which lists reports) and dingtalk_report_template_detail (which gets template detail).

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 versus alternatives such as dingtalk_report_template_detail or dingtalk_report_create. There is no mention of related tools, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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