ListUpstreamTasks

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 basic level ('get upstream task list') without mentioning any behavioral traits like pagination behavior, permissions required, rate limits, or what constitutes an 'upstream task'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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?

While technically concise with a single phrase, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't provide enough information to be useful, failing to earn its place as an adequate tool description.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'upstream tasks' means in this context, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a list operation with filtering parameters, more context is needed.

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 4 parameters (Id, ProjectEnv, PageSize, PageNumber) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 '获取上游任务列表' (Get upstream task list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListUpstreamTasks' in Chinese. While it indicates the tool lists something (upstream tasks), it doesn't specify what resource or scope it operates on, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListDownstreamTasks' or 'ListTasks'.

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 context, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ListDownstreamTasks' or 'ListTasks' that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no usage direction.

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