task_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed task info including tags and projects, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (though '获取' implies it), whether it requires any special permissions, or what happens if the task doesn't exist (error behavior). For a simple read tool, this is a moderate gap.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds the key detail about included information. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate. It tells the agent what it does and what it returns. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could be more explicit about the return format or error behavior. The sibling list shows this is one of many task tools, and the description does enough to differentiate it from task_list.

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 100% – the only parameter 'id' is described as '任务ID' (task ID). The description adds that the tool returns details including tags and projects, which gives context for why the id is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('获取' = retrieve) and resource ('指定任务' = specified task), and mentions it includes tag and project information. This clearly distinguishes it from task_list (which lists tasks) and task_add/task_update/task_delete (which mutate tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses one point.

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: call this when you need detailed information about a specific task, including its tags and projects. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like task_list for listing multiple tasks. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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