Base Wework Get Task Logs

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

The description indicates a read-only operation by using 'Xem' (view) and enumerates the kinds of historical events captured. With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does not go beyond these basics to mention authentication expectations, pagination, ordering, or response specifics. It is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core operation and includes a few concrete examples. There is no redundant repetition of the title or filler content; every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and the task scope. However, it lacks access_token semantics and does not outline usage boundaries or alternative tools. It is minimally complete but leaves the agent to infer several practical details.

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, but it only partially does. 'của một task' implies that 'id' is the task identifier, which is helpful, but the access_token parameter is not explained at all. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Xem' / view) and a specific resource ('lịch sử thay đổi / audit log của một task'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like get_task (current state) and get_task_comments (comments). Examples of what the log contains (who edited, status changes, deadline changes) further clarify its purpose.

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 intended use case is implied clearly: call this when you need a task's change/audit history. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as base_wework_get_task or base_account_get_system_logs. It provides a clear context but no exclusion or comparison guidance.

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