verify_taskRun acceptance verification for completed tasks or project paths by executing automated checks and code analysis relative to a git baseline, optionally adding extra checks.
对已完成任务或项目路径执行一次验收（不改源码）：自动命令检查 + 代码分析（相对 git 基线）。可用 extraChecks 临时加验。需任务/项目二选一。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | No | ||
| checksMode | No | ||
| baselineRef | No | ||
| extraChecks | No | ||
| projectPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9Input schema / properties / baselineRef / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / checksModeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "append",
+ "replace"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds '不改源码' (does not modify source code), reinforcing the read-only nature, and explains the check process (automatic commands + code analysis) and the ability to add extraChecks. This adds behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses two sentences plus a requirement note, with no redundant phrasing. The key scoping (not modifying source) is placed early, and the parameter requirement is stated clearly.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the behavior of checksMode, the role of baselineRef, expected output format, or potential side effects beyond read-only. It leaves critical details for the agent to infer, which is risky for a verification tool.
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 carries the burden for explaining parameters. It explains taskId/projectPath (must choose one) and extraChecks (temporary additions), but omits checksMode (append/replace) and baselineRef (git baseline). These are significant gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.
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 verb (perform acceptance check), the resource (completed task or project path), and the method (command checks + code analysis relative to git baseline). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_task (execution) and get_task_report (report retrieval) by its focus on verification, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It gives a usage context: for completed tasks or project paths, and requires a choice between taskId and projectPath. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_task_report or rework_task, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.