dingtalk_todo_task_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists the current user's todo tasks, with no mention of read-only semantics, return format, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that clearly front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple list tool, the description is functional but lacks details on return structure, default behavior (e.g., whether incomplete tasks are listed by default), and pagination. Since no output schema exists, the agent would benefit from additional context, making this merely adequate.

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 provides a complete description of the only parameter 'done' with true/false semantics, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 '列出' (list) with a specific resource '待办任务' (todo tasks) and scope '当前用户' (current user), clearly distinguishing it from other todo task tools like create, get, update, done, and delete. This makes the purpose 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implicitly the list counterpart among todo tools, it lacks any direct context or exclusions, and does not mention which sibling tools are alternatives.

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