ListDownstreamTasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a surface level ('get list'), without mentioning any behavioral traits: no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters), error conditions, or output format. This leaves critical operational context completely undocumented.

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 phrase in Chinese that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-informative, it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'downstream' means operationally, doesn't describe the return format or structure, and provides no behavioral context. For a listing tool with pagination parameters, the description should at minimum clarify the listing scope and output expectations, which it fails to do.

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 four parameters documented in the schema itself (Id, ProjectEnv, PageSize, PageNumber). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information 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 '获取下游任务列表' (Get downstream task list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListDownstreamTasks' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool lists something (tasks), it doesn't specify what distinguishes 'downstream' tasks from other task types or clarify the exact resource scope. Compared to sibling tools like 'ListTasks' or 'ListUpstreamTasks', the differentiation is minimal 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a task ID), appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ListTasks', 'ListUpstreamTasks', or 'ListDownstreamTaskInstances'. The agent receives zero directional information about tool selection.

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