get_task

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

The description discloses the return format (success, task, or error) but lacks details on read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 short and includes structured Args/Returns sections. It is efficient with minimal waste, though the contradiction undermines quality.

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 output schema exists, the description omits behavioral context like when to use the tool and fails to correct the parameter contradiction. Incomplete for agent decision-making.

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 description marks 'caller_agent_id' as required (必須) but the schema defines it as optional with default null. This contradiction misleads an AI agent about parameter requirements. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but instead introduces error.

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 retrieves task details with specific verb 'get' and resource 'task'. It is distinct from siblings like list_tasks which lists all tasks, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_tasks, get_task_queue). No context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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