list_task_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read via '查询', but does not state whether robot_sn is an authorization scope, whether results are cached, or how paging interacts with large result sets. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single short front-loaded sentence with no filler. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant but conventional for this API surface and does not bloat the text.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, an agent lacks everything needed to call this correctly — filter semantics, return shape, and paging limits are all absent. The definition is under-specified for the tool's actual complexity.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only the pagination concept (page/pagesize) is loosely implied; robot_sn, site_id, and task_name filtering semantics are entirely unexplained beyond their bare names.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('分页查询任务定义 / List task definitions'), so an agent immediately knows this returns a collection of task definitions. It hints at pagination, which loosely separates it from the singular get_task_definition sibling, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_task_definition, list_task_resources, or list_task_reports. The agent must infer usage purely from the name, with no stated prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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