工单审核时间线

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by mapping to GET endpoints (confirming read-only semantics) and explaining that the flag for audits originates here, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 three short sentences, each contributing unique information: what the tool does (view timeline/steps), why it matters (audit flag source), and API mapping. No wasted words.

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 tool has good annotations and a clear purpose. It explains the audit-flag context and the underlying endpoints. Although there is no output schema, the description gives enough for a read-only timeline tool, though the exact return structure is left unspecified.

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 67%: work_id and source_id have descriptions, response_format has an enum/default but no explicit description. The tool description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema already covers most parameters adequately. Overall, the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('查看' meaning view) and names the exact resource (工单审核时间线 with 流程步骤). It also adds a distinct use case (审核时 flag 取自此处) that differentiates it from sibling tools like order_detail and audit_orders.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('审核时 flag 取自此处' — when reviewing, the flag is taken here). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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