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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: the default filter ('默认 open'), allowed statuses (open/claimed/submitted/done/rejected), and that an empty status returns all tasks. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 two short sentences: the first states purpose and default, the second lists valid statuses and empty-behavior. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains parameter options and default behavior sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must fully compensate. It supplies the allowed status values, the default of 'open', and the semantics of an empty value ('空=全部'), all of which are absent from the schema. This is strong parameter documentation.

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 states '任务板: 看任务' (task board: view tasks), which clearly identifies the verb (view) and resource (tasks). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like agents_list or feeds_list, as no other tool mentions tasks.

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. It does not mention siblings or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the name and purpose.

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