ListDIAlarmRules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The description is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or typical response structure. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what to expect from this operation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how DIAlarmRuleId and JobId interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 '获取数据集成同步任务告警规则列表' clearly states the action (获取/list) and resource (告警规则列表/alarm rule list) with specific context (数据集成同步任务/data integration sync task). It distinguishes from siblings like GetDIAlarmRule (singular) and CreateDIAlarmRule, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like ListAlertRules.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when to use ListDIAlarmRules instead of GetDIAlarmRule (for single rule) or other list tools, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.

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