runninghub_query_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that this is a single, non-blocking query, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, what happens when the task is still running, or result availability.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the core purpose comes first and the version distinction follows immediately.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter query tool whose params are fully documented, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what is returned and the behavior when a task is incomplete.

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 both parameters (taskId, apiVersion) are already documented in the schema, including the fallback advice for apiVersion. The description merely restates the version split at a higher level, adding no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource: querying RunningHub task status and results, with the parenthetical '单次查询' clarifying it is a one-shot poll rather than a blocking wait. It implicitly distinguishes from runninghub_wait_task, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Gives when-to-use guidance for the two apiVersion values (standard model tasks vs workflow/AI app tasks), which is useful selection context. However, it offers no guidance on choosing this tool over runninghub_wait_task or runninghub_submit_task, so tool-level routing is only implied by '单次查询'.

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