get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that local task status and school-reported submission status are tracked separately, but it says nothing about filtering, ordering, pagination, or how stale the school data may be.

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; the most important fact (what is read) comes first. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter, zero-required listing tool the definition leaves filtering, pagination, and source selection entirely undocumented, and gives no usage signal against set_task_status. Too thin for a tool with this many undocumented knobs.

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 0% across four parameters (limit, query, offset, source) and the description mentions none of them. An agent gets no information on how to filter by source, page results, or use the query string, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (读取) and resource (作业/测验待办) plus the returned facets (截止时间、提交状态), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It reads as a task-listing tool, but it never explicitly names how it differs from the sibling set_task_status (write) or get_grades, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to alternatives. The clause '本地状态与学校状态分开' hints at how the data is organized but gives the agent no condition for selecting this tool over set_task_status or get_grades.

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