ListDataQualityRuleTemplates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without detailing traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not described), or error conditions, making it insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, especially for a list operation with filtering parameters.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or providing examples. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without extra value from the description.

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 '查询质量规则模版列表' (Query quality rule template list) clearly states the action (query/list) and resource (quality rule templates), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetDataQualityRuleTemplate' (singular) or 'ListDataQualityRules' (actual rules vs templates), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), comparisons to similar tools (e.g., 'GetDataQualityRuleTemplate' for a single template), or typical use cases, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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