task_load

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the return value and the optional conversation log, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies task state, or what happens on missing tasks.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays reasonably compact. The trigger phrases and Args section are useful, though there is minor redundancy between 'continue working' and 'everything you need to continue the task'.

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 simple two-parameter loader, the description covers the essential input and output semantics. However, it lacks explicit read-only assurance, error behavior, and differentiation from task_resume, so an agent may still be uncertain about side effects or alternatives.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section adds real meaning: name is a task name or ID, and include_conversation controls whether the full log is included. This goes beyond the bare schema and effectively documents both parameters.

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 loads a task's context to continue working, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes the return value (context.md), which helps distinguish from siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with task_resume.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases ('load task X', '加载 X 任务') and the general case 'wants to resume a specific task'. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or point to task_resume as an alternative, which is a notable gap given the sibling tool.

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