ListDIJobRunDetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated (though PageSize/PageNumber parameters suggest pagination), rate limits, or what format the progress information takes. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient 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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and 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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what '执行进展' (execution progress) actually contains, how results are structured, or provide usage context. The agent would need to infer too much about this tool's behavior and output format from just the brief description.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '执行进展' (execution progress) which aligns with the tool's purpose but doesn't provide additional parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and the resource '数据集成同步任务运行的执行进展' (execution progress of data integration sync task runs). It's specific about what information is being retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDIJobs' or 'ListDIJobEvents', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 available (like ListDIJobs, ListDIJobEvents, ListDIJobMetrics), there's no indication of when this specific progress-listing tool is appropriate versus other DI job-related listing tools.

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