wb_dev_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety disclosure burden. It does disclose that the domain contains write operations, that writes require confirm, and that concurrent checking is serialized — useful traits not in the schema. It still omits the effect of writeback on existing state, return format, and any permission/error behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 compact: it fronts the domain purpose, then adds the two most important operational constraints (confirm requirement and serial queue). Minor redundancy exists in the final parenthetical '本域含写操作' which restates the write-operation warning.

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 description plus a well-covered schema is usable for basic invocation of dev-task commands. However, no output schema exists and the description does not explain return behavior, enumerate the full allowed command set, or clarify how the generic tool relates to the specialized wb_dev_task_* siblings, leaving gaps for a complex multi-command domain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real parameter meaning: it enumerates the dev-task command family (list/show/create/stage/item), which the schema explicitly refers to as the source of allowed first words. It also reinforces the write/confirm relationship for the confirm parameter.

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 identifies the tool as the dev-task command family/domain and lists representative subcommands (list/show/create/stage/item), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish the generic wb_dev_task wrapper from the sibling specialized tools wb_dev_task_create, wb_dev_task_stage, and wb_dev_task_item.

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 usage context: this tool is for dev-task pipeline commands, and warns that writes require confirm. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance about preferring the specialized sibling tools for create/stage/item.

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