mkt_work_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the read-only safety profile and that results link to SOP runs, deliverables and handoffs, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, permission requirements, or what happens when an id is unknown. For a tool with zero annotation coverage the disclosure is thin.

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 compact clause that front-loads the read-only constraint and then enumerates capabilities. No filler, though the closing negation could be folded more tightly into the opening scope statement.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this covers purpose and scope adequately, but with no annotations and no parameter documentation the agent still lacks guidance on the required id and on what list versus next actually return.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 列表/详情/下一步 to the list/show/next enum values, but 工作单 ID semantics remain unexplained — whether it is required for show/next, its format, or what error a bad id produces.

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?

Names the resource (WorkOrder) and the three operations (list/detail/next-step) that map onto the action enum, plus the associated entities (SOP run, deliverables, handoffs). It distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings by declaring 只读 and 不创建、不审批, though it never names a specific alternative tool.

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 exclusion clause 不创建、不审批 tells the agent what this tool will not do, which implicitly routes write work elsewhere. However no sibling is named and no explicit condition for choosing list vs show vs next is stated.

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