advisor_list_tasks

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 indicates a list operation (implying read-only), but does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or what 'kimi 会话' entails. It adds scoping info ('本工程'), but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 front-loads the verb '列出' and includes all essential information without waste. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete—it states the resource, scope, and displayed fields. It slightly lacks usage guidance but otherwise covers the tool's purpose adequately.

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 there are no param semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description does not mislead about parameters.

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 tool lists advisor session bindings for the current project, specifying the fields included (session name / status / kimi session). The verb '列出' (list) and resource '顾问会话绑定' are specific, and it is clearly distinct from sibling create, consult, poll, and close operations.

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 implies usage for viewing existing session bindings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are given, leaving the usage context implicit.

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