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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info. It discloses that the snapshot is sanitized, that include_live triggers extra API calls, and that the agent must compare snapshots itself. It doesn't mention potential side effects, but as a read-only operation it's sufficient.

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?

Three dense sentences plus a parameter summary and example. Information is front-loaded, no redundancy, and every sentence adds value. The structure guides the agent from purpose to usage to exact invocation.

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 two-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description covers the return content, the live option, and the intended comparison. It doesn't detail error cases or exact snapshot structure, but those are minor for this simple tool.

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 fully explains both parameters: task_id is required and identifies the task; include_live (default false) fetches current config. The example clarifies usage. This compensates entirely for the schema gap.

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 returns a sanitized creation snapshot for a single create task, with an optional live-snapshot fetch. It distinguishes from sibling tasks_get_status (status), tasks_list (list), and tasks_latest (latest) by specifying 'one create task' and the snapshot content.

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 when to use it—to inspect creation details and detect manual edits via live_snapshot—but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It provides a clear usage scenario but lacks direct comparison with other tasks_* tools.

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