cat_pending_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'gets' pending cluster tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens when no pending tasks exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point with zero structural issues.

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 no parameters (simple complexity) and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what format the pending tasks are returned in, whether there are filtering options, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace with multiple task-related alternatives, more differentiation would be helpful.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension since no parameter semantics are required.

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 '获取待处理的集群任务' (Get pending cluster tasks) clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '待处理的集群任务' (pending cluster tasks). It distinguishes from general task tools like 'cat_tasks' or 'tasks_list' by specifying 'pending' tasks, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'cluster_pending_tasks' which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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 sibling tools like 'cat_tasks', 'tasks_list', and 'cluster_pending_tasks' available, there's no indication of when this specific tool is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or what limitations it might have compared to similar tools.

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