待审工单列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the current-user scoping and auditor perspective, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or response format, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes the endpoint for traceability. No redundant fluff.

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 simple list tool with 6 optional params and no output schema, the description gives core purpose and scope but doesn't clarify that the status filter allows non-pending statuses despite saying '待审核'. It also doesn't mention response format, though the response_format param exists.

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 50%, with text/status/work_id described. The description itself doesn't add parameter semantics, but page and page_size are self-evident from the '分页列出' verb. No critical parameter info is missing.

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 '分页列出' (paginated list) and names the resource '待审核工单' (pending audit orders), with an explicit auditor perspective and current-user scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yearning_my_orders and yearning_audit_order.

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?

It provides clear context: auditor perspective, current-user related, paginated. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the '审核人视角' implies when to use it over other order lists.

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