yearning_my_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint and filter capabilities, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or return format. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that clearly state the purpose and supported filters, plus the API reference. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 tool's moderate complexity, annotations, and output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose, filters, pagination, and API. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention response format or default sort order, but these are not critical given the output schema exists.

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 coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic grouping by mentioning status/keyword/work_id filtering, which aligns with the schema but does not provide new details beyond what the parameter descriptions already contain. It does not compensate for the few undocumented parameters.

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 the tool lists work orders submitted by the current user, with a specific verb '列出' and resource '当前用户提交的工单'. It also mentions supported filters (status/keyword/work_id), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like order_detail or 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?

The description implies usage for viewing the current user's own submitted orders, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5 but is still clear.

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