ListDIJobEvents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get/retrieve) implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the events list returns. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise for a list/retrieval operation.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'event', what information events contain, how results are structured, or provide any examples. The agent would need to guess about the return format and practical usage despite the complete parameter schema.

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 6 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that StartTime/EndTime define a time range) or provide examples of EventType values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'retrieve') and resource ('数据集成同步任务的运行事件列表' meaning 'data integration synchronization task run events list'). It's specific about what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDIJobMetrics' or 'ListDIJobRunDetails' which might retrieve related but different information.

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 many sibling tools like 'ListDIJobs', 'ListDIJobMetrics', and 'ListDIJobRunDetails', there's no indication of when this specific event listing tool is appropriate versus those other DI job-related list tools.

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