sis_evals_pending

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. 取 implies a read-only fetch, but the description says nothing about what the tasks contain, whether they expire or have deadlines, whether results are scoped to a term, or how many to expect. For a zero-argument tool the risk is low, but essentially no behavioral context is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, hedging, or redundancy. Nothing in it could be cut, and the key qualifier (尚未完成) appears before the noun it modifies.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth about results, and it does not say what a returned 评教任务 looks like or whether the list is per-course, per-term, or deadline-ordered. For a simple zero-argument read that may be tolerable, but it leaves the agent unable to describe or trust the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of filters also means there are no parameter semantics an agent could get wrong.

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?

"取尚未完成的评教任务" gives a specific verb (取 = fetch) and a specific resource (评教任务 = teaching-evaluation tasks), further narrowed to incomplete ones. An agent can immediately tell this is a read of outstanding evaluation items, and no sibling tool in the list covers evaluations, so confusion risk is low. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't name its relationship to the surrounding sis_* family.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The only implied usage cue is the word 尚未完成 (not yet completed), which tells the agent this is for outstanding rather than completed evaluations, but nothing about prerequisites, timing, or when another tool would be preferable.

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