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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the read returns and how deep it goes (plan clauses, gate deciders, recent runs) — not just 'gets a task.' It stops short of describing run recency limits or whether the plan may be absent.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents in a single dense sentence, then two short routing sentences. Slightly heavy on parenthetical enumeration but every clause serves differentiation or elicitation; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape — and it does, naming the sentence, status, latest plan with clause-level detail, referenced flow/people names, and recent runs. Combined with annotations and a fully-described 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so both taskId and the workspace/auth-override semantics are already documented. The description adds only the provenance hint for taskId (from workbench_tasks_list) and says nothing about the workspace parameter; baseline 3 fits when the schema carries the weight.

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 ('One Task in full') and enumerates what comes back: sentence, status, latest saved plan/clauses, flow and people names, recent runs. It contrasts clearly with siblings workbench_tasks_list (source of ids) and workbench_tasks_compile (edit path), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Read this before editing a task's sentence (workbench_tasks_compile with taskId)' and 'when the user asks what a task does.' It also names the prerequisite source for the required id ('Get the taskId from workbench_tasks_list'), leaving no routing inference to the agent.

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