启动任务

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that scheduling is started, but does not disclose idempotency, permission requirements, effect on already-running jobs, or potential error conditions. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical that adds clarifying detail about automatic execution. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context such as return values, idempotency, or preconditions, which leaves an agent uncertain about edge cases.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter jobId with description '任务 id'. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('启动' = start) and resource ('指定任务的调度' = scheduling of the specified task), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like trigger_job (immediate execution) and stop_job. The parenthetical clarifies that the effect is automatic execution according to schedule configuration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention trigger_job for immediate execution or stop_job to halt scheduling. Usage is only implied by the phrasing, with no exclusionary or comparative context.

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