list_submission_logs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns certain fields, but does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or how pagination behaves beyond the default values. For a query tool, these are relatively safe assumptions, but the lack of explicit statements leaves room for ambiguity, hence a 3.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 paginated list tool with only two numeric parameters and no output schema, the description is largely adequate. It states the return fields and implies pagination. While it does not specify the exact structure of the response or any ordering, the tool's simplicity means these are minor gaps. The description covers the essential context needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 covers both parameters (current and pageSize) with descriptions, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only mentions 'paginated', which is already implied by the parameter names and defaults. No additional syntactic or format details are offered.

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 clearly states a specific verb '分页查询' (paginated query) and resource '提交日志' (submission logs), and it lists the return fields (submission type, creator, task ID). This unambiguously distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which deal with logs, so an agent can tell it apart without deeper inspection.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While it is implicitly the tool for listing submission logs, there is no explicit context such as 'use when you need to retrieve submission history' or mention of what not to use it for. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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