GetDIJob

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'view' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when WithDetails is false versus true. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. For a read operation that likely returns structured configuration data, the description doesn't hint at the return format or what 'configuration details' actually include beyond what's implied by the WithDetails parameter.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '查看数据集成同步任务配置详情' translates to 'View data integration synchronization task configuration details', which clearly states the verb ('view') and resource ('data integration synchronization task configuration details'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like GetDIJobLog or GetDIJobMetrics, which also retrieve DI job information but focus on different aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like GetDIJobLog (for logs), GetDIJobMetrics (for metrics), and ListDIJobs (for listing), there's no indication of when this specific configuration-detail tool is appropriate versus those other DI job-related tools.

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