运行到期任务

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

The description explicitly discloses the key side-effect behavior: commit defaults to false and only an explicit true writes to the job library. This adds valuable mutation semantics beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core operation and then adds the critical commit guard. Every element earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

The description is adequate for basic selection and invocation, especially with an output schema present. However, it lacks detail on what "due" means, how the max_* parameters affect execution, and what happens when commit is false beyond not writing to the library.

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%, and the description only explains the commit parameter. The remaining parameters (max_probes, max_queries, max_collections) are left to be inferred from their names and schema ranges, which is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pairing: it runs due discovery, probing, and approved-source collection by cadence. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_pipeline or discover_sources by naming the exact scope of work.

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?

"按 cadence 运行到期任务" implies the tool is for executing tasks that have become due, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as run_pipeline, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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