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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real scope boundaries beyond the annotation — MRs are returned as links with review threads deliberately left at the git provider, repositories are ordered main-first, and "reading hints" are included. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or behavior when the task has no code, which keeps it below 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the returned artifacts and closed with the use case; no filler or repetition. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical asides, which slightly taxes readability but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return contents (repos, branches, commits, MRs, hints) so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the readOnly annotation and fully documented parameters, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only pagination/empty-state behavior is unaddressed.

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% and both parameters (ID, key) are documented in the schema, including the "key if the ID is unknown" fallback. The description says only "a task's code" and adds no syntax, format, or ID-vs-key guidance, so the baseline of 3 for schema-carried parameters is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns a task's code") and then enumerates the payload precisely: product repositories in main-first order, live branches carrying the task key, commits with stats and paths, the task's MRs, and reading hints. This scope enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like task_commits or repo_context. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Useful when the user asks how a task is implemented or wants it reviewed" gives a clear positive trigger for invocation. There are no exclusions and no routing against the many adjacent tools (task_commits, task_context, feature_code_context), so it is clear context without the when-not guidance a 5 would require.

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