list_research_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the filtering behavior, valid status values, None=all semantics, and the limit cap, which is useful. It does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or whether the list is user-scoped, but for a list operation this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear one-line summary followed by a concise Args block. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter list tool, the params are fully described and the tool can be invoked correctly. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the returned jobs look like, ordering, pagination, or the exact scope of 'tasks (M10)', leaving minor downstream uncertainty.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: it explains status's allowed values and None=all behavior, and clarifies that limit is an upper bound with a default of 50. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 ('任务'/research jobs), and mentions status filtering, making its purpose clear. It is naturally distinguished from sibling mutations like cancel/delete/run, but does not explicitly contrast with get_research_job or describe scope, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use when you need to list or filter research jobs, and the status values give concrete filtering context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many job-management siblings.

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