ListDIJobs

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. It states the action ('获取列表' meaning 'get list') but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a list tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sentence in Chinese ('获取数据集成同步任务配置列表') that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list structure, fields), error conditions, or behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a list tool with rich filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., ProjectId as workspace ID, PageSize with defaults). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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' meaning 'get' or 'list') and resource ('数据集成同步任务配置列表' meaning 'data integration sync task configuration list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDIJob' (which likely retrieves a single job) or 'ListDIJobRunDetails' (which likely lists run details rather than configurations).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ProjectId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'GetDIJob' or 'ListDIJobRunDetails', leaving the agent with no context for tool selection.

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