cat_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this tool requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it shows all tasks or only certain types, or any rate limits or constraints. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral context.

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 appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the tool has 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. While it covers the basic purpose and lists parameters, it doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide important behavioral context needed for proper tool selection and invocation in a task management context.

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?

The description explicitly lists both parameters ('detailed' and 'parent_task_id') with brief explanations, which adds value beyond the input schema that has 0% description coverage. However, the explanations are minimal ('是否显示详细信息' - whether to show detailed information, '父任务ID' - parent task ID) and don't provide deeper context about what 'detailed information' includes or how parent_task_id filtering works.

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 states '获取正在执行的任务' (Get currently executing tasks), which provides a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('正在执行的任务' - currently executing tasks). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get', which appear to serve similar functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to tasks (tasks_cancel, tasks_get, tasks_list), but the description doesn't indicate when cat_tasks is preferred over these other options or what specific use cases it addresses.

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