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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the workflow ordering, but says nothing about read-only guarantees, auth/permission requirements, or failure behavior for an invalid slug.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then the constraint. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the inline field list (id/title/description/cost/credits/anonymous/job/params schema) usefully describes the return shape and is the right thing to include. Only the slug's meaning and possible error modes remain uncovered.

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 single param has 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It confirms slug is required but never explains what the slug identifies (job vs template) or its format, leaving a real gap even though the schema independently marks it required.

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 (列出) and resource (this job's, by-template, available actions), and names the fields it returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like canvas_action and list_templates without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call it before canvas_action and not to guess action names, because action sets differ per job. This is a precise when-to-use plus a named downstream alternative.

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