get_task_report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it returns the full text of report.md and defaults round to the latest round when omitted. It doesn't claim any write side effects and doesn't contradict annotations.

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 sentences, no filler; the core action and the only non-obvious default are both stated. Every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only, two-parameter fetch with annotations covering safety. It states what is returned (full report.md content) and the default round behavior; no output schema exists, so that statement matters. Missing minor context such as behavior when no report exists or when task has no acceptance report, but not essential for a basic read.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains round semantics and its default ('缺省取最新一轮') and clarifies the output is the report's full text. taskId is not described in prose, but the required parameter and tool name make its role obvious; schema supplies type constraints.

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 (acceptance report / report.md), and parameter scope (by round), making the tool's main function clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like query_task or list_tasks, but the resource is unique enough that the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Clear context: use when you need the full acceptance report for a given or latest round. The optional-round behavior and default are stated, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are given, so it falls short of explicit sibling routing.

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