Define a cleaning task for a GS robot by specifying its serial number, task name, work mode, map resources, and optional loop count for repeat execution.
创建任务定义 / Create task definition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | No | ||
| robot_sn | Yes | ||
| task_name | Yes | ||
| work_mode | Yes | ||
| loop_count | No | ||
| map_resource_list | Yes | ||
| task_advance_config | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutation persisting server-side state, not any auth/permission requirement tied to robot_sn or site_id, not whether it validates the referenced map resources, and not what happens on duplicate task_name. For a create tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.
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?
It is short, but only because it says nothing; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, required inputs, or outcome. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy.
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?
A 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage needs the description to supply structure and behavior. It supplies neither, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.
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?
Seven parameters at 0% schema description coverage, including two required free-form objects (work_mode, map_resource_list items) and an optional task_advance_config, and the description explains none of them. The agent has no idea what shape work_mode or map_resource_list entries must take, which is the single biggest risk for this tool.
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 '创建任务定义 / Create task definition' is a bilingual restatement of the tool name with no added scope, no statement of what a task definition contains, and no differentiation from siblings like create_simple_schedule or update_task_definition. An agent learns nothing beyond what the name already conveys.
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 mention of the many sibling alternatives (create_simple_schedule, create_schedule, run_cleaning_task) that also create executables. The agent must guess whether this is the right entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.