ListDataQualityEvaluationTasks

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 this is a query/list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), error conditions, or response format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 ('查询质量监控任务列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic list operation, though it could be more front-loaded with key distinctions if it were longer. There's no wasted verbiage, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (a list operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., task details, statuses), how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and results to be fully helpful.

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 5 parameters (ProjectId, PageSize, PageNumber, TableGuid, Name) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '查询质量监控任务列表' (Query quality monitoring task list) clearly states the verb ('query') and resource ('quality monitoring task list'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstances' or 'ListDataQualityRules', which also list related data quality entities. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this particular listing operation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a ProjectId), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'GetDataQualityEvaluationTask' (for single task details) or 'ListDataQualityEvaluationTaskInstances' (for task instances). Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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