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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the return fields (title, description, worker_id, input, schedule, slug) and suggesting follow-up tools, which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-organized with clear section headers (WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, RETURNS, WORKFLOW). It is concise but informative, without wasted words. Could be slightly more compressed, but overall it is efficient.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate completeness: it explains the return format, gives usage guidelines, and suggests a workflow. It covers key aspects an agent needs to know, though it could mention idempotency or caching hints.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (worker_task_id) with a description and example. The description does not add additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 begins with a clear statement: 'Get detail for a specific saved CoreClaw worker task.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (worker task), and scope (specific, saved). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_worker_tasks.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections. It states when to inspect a saved task's configuration, schedule, or input, and provides a Chinese trigger. It also warns against using public web search or code search for private data, and not to call internal APIs. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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