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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: credit cost per action (5 for report, 2 for detection), that failures are not charged, that repeated same-key calls return cached results without double-charging, and the two response modes (sync data vs job jobId/pollSec).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then parameters, then return shape, then cost/retry semantics, then orchestration. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter run-on could be tightened.

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 complex nested-param tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the two return-shape modes, how to poll job results, cost implications, and the recommended call sequence.

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 80% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by cross-referencing list_actions' JSON Schema for params and clarifying that session_id attaches the action record to an open_canvas session and hostUserId is the host identifier.

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?

States a specific verb (执行) and resource (岗位动作) and enumerates concrete actions (preflight / list_checks / gen_report / run_detection / resolve_user), making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_actions and get_job which it references by name.

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?

Provides an explicit orchestration flow (list_actions → canvas_action(preflight) → canvas_action(gen_report) → get_job), names the alternative tools for discovery and polling, and even clarifies safe retry conditions, leaving little to inference.

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