ListDIJobMetrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('view metrics') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 4 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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. This is appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what metrics are available, what format the output takes, whether time ranges are required, or how to interpret results. For a metrics querying tool in a complex data integration context, this leaves too many unanswered questions for effective agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters (StartTime, EndTime, MetricName, DIJobId) with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but doesn't provide extra value like explaining metric name formats or time range requirements.

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运行指标' (View data integration synchronization task running metrics) states a clear verb ('view') and resource ('metrics'), but is somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like ListDIJobEvents or ListDIJobRunDetails. It doesn't specify whether this lists metrics for all jobs or a specific one, or what types of metrics are available.

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 ListDIJobEvents, ListDIJobRunDetails, and GetDIJobLog that might provide related information, there's no indication of when this specific metrics-listing tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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