获取图片生成任务列表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two genuine behavioral traits beyond the schema: results are scoped to the current API Key's own tasks, and output is sorted by creation time descending. It omits what each returned task contains and whether pagination metadata is included, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence that states scope, ordering and filtering in order of importance with no redundant restatement of the name. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 3-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema this covers the essentials (who, order, filter), but with no output schema present the description gives no hint about the shape of returned task records or pagination fields, leaving an agent to discover the response empirically.

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% — page, pageSize and the status enum are all documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description only echoes the status-filter concept and adds no format or default detail beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair (返回…图片生成任务历史) and adds scope (当前 API Key 用户) and ordering (按创建时间倒序), so an agent can tell this is a list/history operation distinct from the sibling get_generation_task. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the single-task alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: '任务历史' plus '可按状态过滤' suggests browsing past tasks, and the sibling name get_generation_task implies the single-record counterpart, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or what prerequisites exist.

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