Check persistent translation job status and fetch full details for a specific reference to monitor game localization progress.
查看持久化的翻译任务状态；给 --ref 则看某一条的完整载荷（含检索结果）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | task_id 或 unit_id；留空则列出全部 | |
| limit | No | 最多返回多少条（0 = 全部） | |
| status | No | 只看某个状态 | |
| project | No | 游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录） | |
| workdir | No | 工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that passing ref returns the complete payload including retrieval/results, which is useful behavioral color. It doesn't discuss pagination, ordering, or what absent refs return, so it only modestly exceeds the annotations.
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 tight clauses with no filler, front-loading the core action and then the ref conditional. Minor friction: it uses CLI-style '--ref' while the actual parameter is 'ref', which could momentarily confuse an agent invoking via JSON.
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 read-only listing/lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema required, the description covers the essential distinction between listing and single-record retrieval. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the 'ref' semantics (full payload with retrieval results) but adds nothing for limit, status, project, or workdir beyond what the schema states.
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?
It states a specific verb and resource: '查看持久化的翻译任务状态' (view persisted translation task status), which distinguishes it from generic siblings. However, the name 'tasks' is broad and the description doesn't explicitly contrast it with similar status tools like agent_status or project_status. Purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
It gives a conditional on the 'ref' parameter ('给 --ref 则看某一条的完整载荷'), which hints at when to pass ref versus listing all. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling status/list tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.