Retrieve details for a specified task, including status, reward, and acceptance requirements. Use the task ID to inspect requirements before claiming or submitting work.
查看指定任务的详情（状态、报酬、验收要求等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | 任务 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查看' implies a non-mutating read, but there is no statement about permissions, error behavior for invalid task IDs, or whether results are cached/live — all of which matter for a task-fetching tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The trailing '等' (etc.) slightly weakens precision about the returned fields, but the structure is otherwise tight and appropriate for a simple getter.
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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is genuinely helpful and covers the core need. The absence of annotations leaves the safety and permission profile entirely unaddressed, which keeps this at minimum-viable rather than complete.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('任务 ID'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or source information for the ID beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clear verb+resource: viewing a specified task's details, and enumerates what those details are (status, reward, acceptance requirements). It does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling agtask_get_task_history or agtask_list_open_tasks, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. The phrase 'specified task' implies an ID must be known, but there is no indication of when to prefer this over get_task_history or list_open_tasks, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implicitly inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.