dingtalk_wiki_space_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the list is restricted to the current user's accessible spaces, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the return format or pagination. For a list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the action. It says everything necessary without waste.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It tells what the tool lists and the scope. It could potentially mention the fields returned, but that is not essential for a list operation. The lack of usage guidance is the main gap, but that is already penalized in its dimension.

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, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. Per rubric, 0 parameters receive a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are 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 clearly states the verb '列出' (list) and the resource '知识库空间' (wiki spaces), scoped to '当前用户可访问' (accessible to current user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dingtalk_wiki_space_search, which is for searching, and dingtalk_wiki_node_list, which lists nodes within a space.

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. It does not mention that this is for browsing all accessible spaces whereas search is for finding specific ones, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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