minimax_agent_task

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's autonomous loop behavior: reading files, writing code, running tests, debugging. This provides good transparency for an autonomous agent tool.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a clear autonomous loop and fully described parameters, the description covers the main behavior and scope. It could mention error handling or cancellation, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its primary function.

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 tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions. All parameters are described in the schema, so with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description provides context but no parameter-specific enhancements.

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 'execute a complete coding task autonomously', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like minimax_generate_code by emphasizing the autonomous loop that includes reading, writing, testing, and debugging.

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 the tool is for full coding tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like minimax_chat or minimax_plan. No when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.

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