tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The definition's one real contribution is the status value domain (running/succeeded/failed/canceled), which matters behaviorally. It says nothing about ordering, default scope of returned tasks, or truncation behavior.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical status list is compact. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves room that could have been spent on routing guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never indicates what a task record looks like (id, name, timestamps, status) or how many are returned relative to limit. For a read/list tool where the caller must know what comes back to interpret the result, this is a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 50%: status has only '按状态过滤' and limit has no description at all. The description compensates partly by enumerating the four valid status strings, which the schema does not do (no enums declared). It still adds nothing about limit's effect, default of 20, or ordering.

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 gives a verb+resource (查询 / MiniMax 后台任务状态) and enumerates the possible status values, which is helpful. But it is ambiguous whether this lists tasks or fetches one task's state, and it draws no boundary against siblings such as minimax_status, minimax_pending, and minimax_get_result, which sound like they answer overlapping questions.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With so many sibling tools covering status, pending work, and results, the definition should say which situations select this tool rather than minimax_pending or minimax_get_result.

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