tasks_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parameters like 'wait_for_completion' and 'timeout', which imply asynchronous behavior and potential delays, but doesn't explain what happens during waiting (e.g., blocking vs polling), error handling, or response format. For a tool with parameters affecting behavior, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter explanations are minimal and could be more integrated; the structure is functional but not optimally efficient, with some redundancy in listing parameters that are already in the schema.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers parameter basics but misses behavioral context (e.g., what 'details' include, error cases, async handling) and doesn't address sibling tool differentiation. For a tool with potential complexity in task management, this leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter in Chinese: 'task_id' as task ID with format 'node_id:task_number', 'wait_for_completion' as waiting for task completion, and 'timeout' as wait timeout. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's basic types, though it lacks details like timeout units or default values.

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 '获取任务详情' (get task details), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (task details). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_cancel', and the purpose could be more specific about what 'details' include. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_cancel'. The description only lists parameters without context for usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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