get_task_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context beyond that: the report is fetched from report.md and round defaults to the latest. It does not describe pagination, error behavior, or report length, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action (fetch full report) and then the parameter default. Zero wasted words, and the most important behavioral nuance (round default) is placed second, right after the verb.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, which file, and the round default. No missing critical information prevents correct invocation; taskId's role is inferable from context.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that round is optional and defaults to the latest round, and that the result is the full text of report.md. However, taskId's semantics are only implied by the tool name and are not explicitly described, so compensation is partial.

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?

Description states a specific verb (取/get), a specific resource (验收报告全文/report.md), and the round-scoping behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_task or list_tasks, which are about task state rather than report file content.

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 description gives a clear usage rule: round defaults to the latest round when omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as query_task or verify_task, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.

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