task_detail

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that embedded media comes back as short refs (img:12, video:3) that are only valid for the lifetime of this MCP run, that unusable/blob URLs are only counted in unusable_media, and that unrecognized fields land in unread. It never states that the call is read-only or what happens on an invalid/foreign task_id, which keeps it below the top score.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single very long run-on sentence enumerating return fields, followed by two more dense paragraphs; a bulleted field list would be far more scannable. Most of the content earns its place given there is no output schema, but the packaging is heavy and hard to parse at a glance.

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, so the description must explain the return value — and it does so thoroughly for both task variants: field-by-field for 征集任务, a separate summary for 成长任务, plus edge cases (unusable media, unread fields, money_mode/people semantics). Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is already documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the session-scoped provenance of task_id and the purpose of save_to, but it says nothing about instance_id/project_path (the either/or pair) and nothing about the save_to file naming or retention beyond what the schema already 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?

Opens with '一个任务的详情' — a clear resource (a single task's detail) whose content is then enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves versus tasks_list (which supplies the ids). The verb is implied rather than stated, but the resource and scope are unambiguous and the differentiation from the sibling tasks_list/task_receive is evident.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('task_id 须来自本会话的 tasks_list') and an explicit exclusion ('活动没有详情'), plus a routing note that growth tasks return a different shape (rewards, reference projects, inspiration, tutorials). It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the target is an activity, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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