cls_describe_scheduled_sql_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a query/list operation (implied read-only) and provides some behavioral context about pagination defaults and regional behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return information. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences. The only minor issue is that the purpose statement could be more front-loaded before the detailed sections.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description provides good coverage. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail (though it helpfully summarizes them). The main gap is lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations in Chinese. Each of the 5 parameters gets clear semantic meaning, including defaults, optionality, examples (region values), and references to other tools. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose as '查询定时 SQL 任务列表' (query scheduled SQL task list) and explains that these tasks are for periodic SQL analysis with results stored in target log topics. This provides a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cls_describe_data_transform_tasks or cls_describe_topics.

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 context through the parameter explanations (e.g., region defaults and reference to cls_describe_regions for available regions) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or sibling tool comparisons are included.

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