ListDownstreamTaskInstances

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. The description only states it's a list operation, which implies it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or provide any other behavioral context. There's no information about pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, from a pure conciseness perspective, every word earns its place.

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 that this is a listing tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent needs to understand what 'downstream' means in this context, how results are structured, whether there are pagination considerations beyond the parameters, and how this differs from other listing tools. The single-phrase description fails to provide this necessary context for proper tool invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in Chinese. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline 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 '获取下游任务实例列表' (Get downstream task instances list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListDownstreamTaskInstances' in Chinese. It doesn't provide any additional specificity about what constitutes 'downstream' or what kind of task instances are being listed. While it's clear this is a list operation, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like ListTaskInstances or ListUpstreamTaskInstances beyond the directional qualifier.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other listing tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for proper tool selection.

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