uof_custom_get_task_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses output fields and that task_id is required from user. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid task_id) but is sufficient for a simple query 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?

Two short paragraphs: first defines action, second gives usage guidance. No redundant sentences, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Simple tool with one param, has output schema. Description covers purpose, usage, and important context (task_id source). No gaps given the tool's complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (task_id) with 100% schema coverage. Description repeats the schema's info about where task_id comes from, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it queries a summary of a task, listing specific fields (applicant, current result, closure date). It differentiates from sibling get_task_result by noting that tool provides step-by-step signing history.

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?

Explicit '何時使用' section tells when to use this tool ('想快速知道某張單目前的狀態時') and when to use alternative ('需要逐站簽核歷程請改用 get_task_result'). Also notes that task_id must be provided by user since system has no pending list API.

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