Base Wework Get Tasklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'view' implies a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any error behavior, authentication requirements beyond the presence of access_token, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a simple get, this 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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists (not shown but implied), which covers return values. However, the description lacks guidance on the access_token parameter and does not mention any caveats (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid). For a basic read tool, this is minimally sufficient but not complete.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It explains 'id' is used to identify the tasklist, but says nothing about access_token, its purpose, or how it should be obtained. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, which already lists the parameter names and types.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves details of a task list by ID ('Xem chi tiết một danh sách công việc (Tasklist) theo ID'). The verb is specific (view) and the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like base_wework_get_task, but the name and description make the purpose clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it. Given the abundance of sibling tools, some context about when to fetch a tasklist instead of a task or project would help.

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