查询任务详情

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'query', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, describe what happens if the job id does not exist, or outline the response structure. This is a gap for a simple retrieval tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no redundant text or filler, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description gives a general sense of the return value ('complete configuration details') but omits specifics such as the exact fields returned, error handling, or examples. The lack of an output schema means the description should provide a bit more context about what 'complete' includes, but it remains adequate for basic use.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter jobId with the description '任务 id' (task id). The description's phrase 'based on task id' adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and with 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tool queries the complete configuration details of an XXL-JOB task by its id. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs, which lists jobs, and update_job, which modifies a job.

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 implies use when you have a job id and need full configuration details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_jobs or get_job_log_content. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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