agtask_get_task_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and does not disclose read-only nature (implied by '查看'), return format, pagination, permission needs, or the scope of the history. It adds little 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Appropriate size and structure for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It conveys what the tool does but does not describe what the returned history includes, whether it is paginated, or any limits. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes 0 parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% description coverage. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, so the baseline of 4 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 specific verb ('查看' / view) and resource ('任务历史' / task history) with the scope '本 Agent' (this Agent), so the purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like agtask_list_open_tasks or agtask_get_task, so it cannot be a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agtask_list_open_tasks or agtask_get_task. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers – only an implied usage from the purpose statement.

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