query_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the default 40-line tail of agent.log and the returned data shape (task meta + log snippet). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the return format. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, return contents, and a behavioral default. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it does not mention error behavior or handling of very large tailLines.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters. It implicitly clarifies tailLines via '默认 agent.log 末 40 行' and makes taskId's role obvious through '查询任务状态'. It does not fully enumerate constraints, but provides enough meaning for correct use.

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 states a specific verb '查询' (query) on the task resource and clearly enumerates what it provides: status, progress, recent log tail, task meta, and log snippet. It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_task_report or list_tasks.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_task_report or list_tasks. The read-only nature and log-tail focus imply a use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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