Fetch comments and operation history for a Zentao task, showing who said what and when with usernames mapped to real names. Output as JSON or markdown, optionally including all actions.
获取指定任务的备注与操作历史记录（谁在什么时候说了什么）。数据来自禅道 task-view 接口的 actions 字段，包含所有评论/备注，并自动将用户名映射为中文真实姓名。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | 输出格式：json(结构化) 或 markdown(可读文本) | markdown |
| taskId | Yes | 任务ID | |
| includeAll | No | 是否包含全部操作历史（创建/指派/编辑等），默认 false 只返回有备注内容的记录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context (data source, inclusion of all comments, automatic username-to-real-name mapping), but it does not clarify the default filtering of operation history versus comments, and the mention of 'operation history' is ambiguous against the includeAll default.
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?
Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. The data source and transformation details in the second sentence are relevant and concise.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify default return behavior. It covers purpose, source, and mapping, but leaves ambiguity about whether operation history is included by default and does not describe the output structure.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents for taskId, format, or includeAll.
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 action ('get') on a specific resource ('specified task's comments and operation history'), and names the data source. The 'specified task' scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings like getBugComments and getTaskDetail.
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?
Clearly signals its intended use case: retrieving task comments and operation history. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough from the resource type and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.