dingtalk_sheet_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'read' clearly indicates a non-mutating operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any further behaviors such as authentication requirements, output format, or error conditions. Given the simplicity of a read operation, the implicit non-destructive nature earns a moderate 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?

The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the core action (读取) and target (在线电子表格指定区域). There is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.

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 only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains the basic operation but does not specify what kind of data is returned (e.g., whether it's a 2D array, raw values, or formatted) or any edge cases (e.g., empty cells). Since no output schema exists, the description should have compensated with return value details, but it remains minimal yet not entirely inadequate for a simple read tool.

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 input schema already provides explicit descriptions for both parameters: range ('单元格区域，如 Sheet1!A1:C10') and sheet_id ('电子表格 ID'). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond echoing '指定区域', which aligns with the range parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (读取, 'read') and the resource (在线电子表格指定区域, 'specified region of an online spreadsheet'). It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like dingtalk_sheet_update or dingtalk_doc_read, the verb 'read' and the focus on 'axls' sheets make the purpose evident.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., dingtalk_doc_read) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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