Create a new task and automatically suspend any active task instead of closing it, preserving progress for later resumption.
创建任务。已有活动任务会挂起而不是关闭。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | 任务目标 | |
| name | Yes | 任务名 | |
| root | Yes | 工作区根目录 | |
| store | No | 存档目录；省略时用工作区内 .checkpoints | |
| constraints | No | 约束 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 任务名 | |
| note | Yes | 存档位置提示 | |
| store | Yes | 存档目录 | |
| task_id | Yes | 新任务 id | |
| prev_suspended | No | ||
| store_is_external | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect: existing active tasks are suspended rather than closed. This adds value beyond the name. However, it does not cover other traits like idempotency, failure modes, or whether the operation is destructive beyond the suspension note. The disclosure is partial but meaningful.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key behavioral caveat. No wasted words or redundant details.
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 that the schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavioral context (creation and suspension of active tasks). It does not explain relationships to sibling tools, but that is not strictly required for invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for a create operation.
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 every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate.
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 '创建任务' (create task), a specific verb and resource, and the additional sentence about suspending active tasks distinguishes it from sibling tools like tc_capture, tc_switch, etc. which imply other operations. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for creating a task and discloses a relevant condition (active tasks will be suspended). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance. The behavioral note gives useful context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.