get_task_reports_smart

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It mentions automatic API selection but does not detail error handling, pagination, output format beyond 'data dictionary', or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 short but mixes English and Chinese in a somewhat confusing way. The Args/Returns list is present but not well-formatted. It could be more concise and structured for clarity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output structure, error scenarios, or how the serial number determines the robot series. Essential usage details are missing.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists parameters in Chinese with no additional details on format, constraints, or allowed values. For example, date parameters lack format specification, and serial_number lacks pattern info.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves task reports and automatically selects the appropriate API based on robot series. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_task_report_png and execute workflow tools, though it could be more explicit about the type of reports.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_task_report_png or the execution tools. The automatic selection based on robot series is implied but not elaborated, and no when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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