list_task_reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioural burden, yet it only discloses that results are paginated. It says nothing about read-only semantics, required robot context, authorization needs, ordering, or what a page of reports contains.

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 a single short bilingual phrase with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description omits parameter meanings, behaviour of time filters, and any return-shape expectation. An agent would have to guess at most call semantics.

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. '分页' hints at page/pagesize, but the required robot_sn and the end_time_min/end_time_max filters are never explained, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 names a verb (list/query) and resource (task reports) and adds the pagination mode, so the core operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like list_task_resources or get_task_report_map_images, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is 'paginated', which does not tell an agent when this listing is preferred over the related report/resource tools.

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