dingtalk_wiki_space_search

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the search action. It does not mention result format, matching behavior, pagination, or error handling. This leaves the agent unaware of important runtime characteristics.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It directly states the purpose, making it easy to parse. Sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description is too thin. It does not explain what results look like (no output schema), how results relate to the keyword, or any usage caveats. With no annotations or output schema, the description should carry more weight but only offers a bare statement.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'keyword' is described as '空间名称关键词'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 '按关键词搜索知识库空间' clearly states a specific action (search) on a specific resource (knowledge base space) via keyword. It distinguishes from siblings like dingtalk_wiki_space_list which lists spaces without searching, and from other search tools.

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_wiki_space_list or dingtalk_doc_search. It lacks any context about use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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