Dpanel Compose Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does convey that this is a detail/status read rather than a mutation. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an unknown id, or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the returned payload itself need not be re-explained.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the resource is stated first and the parameter clarification second. It is efficiently sized, though borderline terse for a tool whose schema documents nothing.

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 (one required string param, output schema present), and the description covers the key ambiguity of where the id comes from. What is missing is routing guidance against the many sibling compose tools and any note on empty/invalid id handling, leaving it adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well for the single parameter: it identifies it as the project id, specifies the format (numeric string), and states where it comes from (the list response). This is meaningfully more than the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 names the resource in Chinese ('Compose 项目详情与任务状态'), so an agent learns this returns compose project details plus task status. However it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it blurs project details with task status (name says 'compose_task'), making it only partly distinguishable from siblings like compose_list and compose_log.

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 implies use by telling the agent that the id is a numeric string obtained from the list ('列表返回'), which is a useful prerequisite pointer. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over dpanel_compose_list, dpanel_compose_log, or dpanel_compose_deploy.

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