get_task_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It hints at providing untruncated data (implying other tools may truncate), but does not state read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. In Chinese, concise but could be restructured for better readability. No fluff.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers expected content (full details, implementation guide, verification standards). Could specify additional fields like status or timestamps, but sufficient for a get-detail tool among many siblings.

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% with parameter description '欲檢視詳情的任務ID'. The description adds context about what the returned details include (implementation guide, verification standards), providing value beyond the schema.

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 action (獲取) and resource (任務的完整詳細信息), and specifies what includes (未截斷的實現指南和驗證標準). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks and update_task.

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?

The description implies usage when needing full task details including implementation guides, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like list_tasks or query_task. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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