Define machine-checkable acceptance criteria for coding tasks using tests, builds, absence patterns, or schema validation, ensuring objective verification.
验收条件定义——任务附机器可判定验收条件（test/build/grep-absent/schema）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | 备注（验收意图说明，审计可读） | |
| task_id | Yes | 任务标识（同一 task_id 重复定义 = 覆盖更新） | |
| criteria | Yes | 验收条件列表（至少一条，机器可判定） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states that this defines acceptance criteria. It does not disclose the overwrite-on-same-task_id behavior, persistence effects, validation failures, or return behavior; the overwrite detail appears only in the task_id parameter description, not in the tool description.
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, immediately identifying the action and scope. It is concise and easy to parse, though it sacrifices behavioral and usage detail.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it omits overwrite semantics (though the schema covers it), how to verify acceptance later, and what result to expect. The schema covers parameters well, but an agent still lacks enough behavioral and workflow context.
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 schema already documents task_id, criteria, and notes. The description's mention of test/build/grep-absent/schema simply restates the enum in the schema and adds no additional parameter meaning.
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 the action ('define') and the resource ('acceptance criteria'), and lists the supported machine-checkable types (test/build/grep-absent/schema). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from the sibling check_acceptance by the define-vs-check contrast, though it does not explicitly call out that sibling.
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 its use when a task needs machine-determinable acceptance criteria, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_acceptance. There is clear context, but no exclusions or explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.