complete_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions side effects (report generation, dependency updates) but omits details like permissions, reversibility, or what happens if the task is not in progress. The auto-generation of 'summary' is only in the schema, not repeated here.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the verb '正式標記'. It packs three actions without excess, though the density slightly reduces readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lacks information about return values (no output schema) and does not clarify what the agent receives after completion (e.g., the report content or status). Given the complexity of a mutation tool that updates dependencies, more context is needed for the agent to understand the full effect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: it does not explain taskId format or summary constraints, merely restating the concept of a completion summary. The tool description's mention of 'detailed completion report' is not a parameter.

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 the tool's action: marking a task as completed, generating a completion report, and updating dependency status. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_task' or 'update_task', though no explicit sibling differentiation is provided.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implicitly assumes use for tasks in progress (constraint on taskId), but does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'update_task' for partial updates.

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