我的工单列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds value by enumerating status code meanings (8=全部, 2=待审核, etc.) and the backend WS endpoint, giving context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Description is concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential status codes and endpoint mapping. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, pagination, status filter values, and the target API. It doesn't describe return format, but response_format parameter exists, making this adequate.

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 covers 5/6 parameters (83%), but the description enriches parameter semantics by providing a full mapping of status codes, which the schema only partially covers. It does not explain response_format, but the status mapping is significant value added.

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 clearly states '分页列出当前用户提交的工单' (paginated list of current user's submitted orders), specifying verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like order_detail (single order) and audit_orders (auditing).

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?

Provides context that this is the current user's order list, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or mention exclusions. It identifies the underlying API endpoint, which hints at usage, but lacks explicit guidance like 'for a single order use order_detail'.

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