run_qoder_cn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several key traits: non-blocking async execution, automatic task tracking, JSON output, real resume via -r, auto mode flags, and automatic retry on 429 with exponential backoff. It still omits authentication requirements, side-effect scope, and failure handling beyond retries, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 purpose and CLI command are front-loaded, followed by differentiating context and behavioral notes. Some redundancy exists (JSON output appears both in the CLI flags and later as 'JSON output'), but the overall structure is efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is only minimally adequate. It covers core behavior and a few parameters, but does not explain many input fields or the shape of the returned task data, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 31% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate substantially. It mentions auto, plan_mode, session_id (via -r), and output format, but leaves model, workdir, task_id, max_retries, timeout_sec, retry_max_ms, and retry_base_ms unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('async call Qoder CN CLI to run a task') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the international Qoder version by noting separate account/model/rate-limit pools and domestic compliance. An agent can recognize this as the CN variant without opening the schema.

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 clear context for when to prefer this tool over run_qoder: data must not leave China, low latency, Chinese-language optimization, and stable access from domestic networks. It does not name run_qoder directly or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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