cls_describe_search_syntax

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 key behavioral traits: it returns a complete syntax reference document, lists specific content included (e.g., CQL retrieval syntax, SQL analysis syntax, CLS extension functions), and states '调用此工具不需要任何参数' (no parameters needed for calling this tool). However, it doesn't mention response format, size, or potential rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose and usage guideline, followed by a bulleted list of content included, and ends with the parameter note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 complexity (providing syntax documentation), the description is complete. It details what the tool returns (a comprehensive reference with specific sections), when to use it, and that no parameters are needed. With an output schema present (as indicated by context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it adequately covers all necessary contextual aspects for a zero-parameter documentation tool.

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 0 parameters, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description explicitly states '调用此工具不需要任何参数' (no parameters needed), which adds clarity beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description confirms this effectively.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: '返回 CLS CQL 完整语法参考文档' (returns the complete CLS CQL syntax reference documentation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's for CQL search syntax documentation, unlike cls_search_log (which executes queries) or other describe tools focused on alarms, dashboards, etc. The verb '返回' (return) and resource '参考文档' (reference documentation) are specific and clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: '当 cls_search_log 执行报错或不确定如何编写查询语句时使用' (use when cls_search_log execution errors or unsure how to write query statements). It names the alternative tool (cls_search_log) and specifies the context (error or uncertainty in query writing), offering clear when-to-use criteria that differentiate it from siblings.

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