close_task

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

没有注解，描述承担全部责任。它只说了'记录'，但未说明是否覆盖已有数据、是否持久化、是否需要权限等。对于一个写操作而言，行为细节不足。

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?

描述是一句简洁的中文句子，没有冗余信息，直接点明用途和时机。虽然简短，但信息密度高。

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?

工具较为简单，3个参数，无输出模式。描述提供了基本使用时机，但参数细节和副作用说明不足，对于代理正确调用已足够基础，但仍缺乏关键上下文。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述提到了'结果'和'待办'，对应outcome和next_actions，但未提及必填参数project。描述只补偿了部分参数，没有完整解释所有输入。

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?

描述明确了工具的使用时机（任务结束前）和目的（记录结果与待办），动作与资源清晰。虽然名字是close_task，描述没有直接说'关闭'，而是强调保存上下文，但仍然能与兄弟工具区分。

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?

明确规定了'每个任务结束前调用'，提供了具体的使用场景。虽然没有显式排除其他工具，但上下文足够清晰，暗示了与load_context的衔接关系。

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