Run acceptance conditions registered for a task ID, returning structured results. Validate completion by executing predefined checks.
验收执行——跑 define_acceptance 登记的条件，返回结构化结果。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | 任务标识 | |
| project_root | No | 项目根（验收命令执行工作目录；缺省 cwd） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that conditions are run and a structured result is returned, but does not disclose whether execution has side effects, requires permissions, or how the structured result is shaped. This is underspecified for an execution 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the return characteristic is included succinctly. It earns its place.
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 only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable for selecting and invoking the tool. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description only promises 'structured result' without explaining its fields or execution side effects, leaving meaningful 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the burden on the description is low and the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful link to define_acceptance-registered conditions, but it does not add material parameter meaning beyond the schema descriptions already present.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'run the conditions registered by define_acceptance' and says it returns a structured result. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling define_acceptance (registration) and other evaluation tools.
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 the correct usage context: check_acceptance is for executing acceptance conditions previously registered by define_acceptance. It gives clear context, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.