StartDIJob

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. '启动' (start) implies a mutation operation that likely changes system state, but the description doesn't disclose what permissions are required, whether this is idempotent, what happens if the job is already running, or what the expected outcome is. The description is too minimal to provide meaningful behavioral context for a tool that presumably initiates data integration processes.

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. While this is efficient, it may be too brief for a tool with complex parameters and behavioral implications. However, every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's action, so it scores well on conciseness despite potential under-specification.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting the job, what success/failure looks like, or any side effects. The tool has complex nested parameters (including deprecated fields) and presumably significant system impact, but the description provides minimal context to help an agent understand the full implications of using it.

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 thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't add any value in this dimension.

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 '启动数据集成同步任务' (Start data integration synchronization task) states a clear verb ('启动' - start) and resource ('数据集成同步任务' - data integration synchronization task), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is being started. It doesn't specify whether this starts a specific job instance or a job definition, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'StartWorkflowInstances' or 'ExecPipelineRunStage' which might have overlapping purposes.

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. With many sibling tools like 'StartWorkflowInstances', 'ExecPipelineRunStage', and 'RerunTaskInstances' that might involve starting processes, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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