Lists recent asynchronous web crawl tasks in reverse update order without returning page content, so you can monitor job status and choose which results to inspect.
列出最近的异步爬取任务（按更新时间倒序），不返回页面正文。
Args: limit: 最多返回多少个任务（默认 20，上限 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sort order and that bodies are omitted, but says nothing about scope (global vs per-session), auth requirements, or pagination beyond the limit cap.
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?
One front-loaded sentence plus a single parameter note; nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the ordering and body-exclusion notes cover the main behavioral questions for a one-parameter list tool. Only the scope of the listing remains ambiguous.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only records default 20, so the description is the sole source of the upper bound of 100 and the meaning of limit. That is a genuine addition beyond the schema, though it does not say what happens if limit exceeds 100.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: list recent async crawl tasks, ordered by update time descending, explicitly excluding page bodies. That distinguishes it from web_crawl_status (single task) and from content-returning siblings, though it never names those siblings directly.
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 phrase '不返回页面正文' implies that an agent needing page content should use web_fetch/web_extract, and '异步爬取任务' implies the crawl_start/status/cancel family. But no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use vs web_crawl_status or session_list is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.