list_star_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a listing operation (read-only) and mentions pagination parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or any side effects. The description is minimal beyond the parameter list.

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 concise with a two-line title and a clear parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and uses a structured Args section. However, it could be slightly more streamlined by removing the redundant Chinese title.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains input well but does not describe the return format, pagination metadata, or possible errors. For a list operation, typical completeness would include what the response contains. It partially covers pagination but lacks output context.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description compensates by explaining all four parameters (advertiser_id, status, page, page_size) with their purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., maximum page_size of 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 verb 'list' and resource 'star tasks', and specifies they are influencer marketing tasks under an advertiser account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ad_detail or get_reports, which have different purposes.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions optional filtering by status and lists pagination parameters, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Sibling tools include many report and detail tools, but no direct alternative for listing star tasks, so some implicit guidance exists but is insufficient.

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