resume

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

The description discloses the return content (active task details, progress, decisions, open questions) and the fallback behavior. Without annotations, it adequately covers the read-only nature and scope, though it does not mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and key details. Every element earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the return contents and fallback behavior, though it could mention error cases or authentication requirements for full completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the single parameter's behavior: if task_id is provided, returns that task's state; if omitted, returns the most recent active task. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's nullable string.

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 the full state of a task, listing specific components (active task details, progress, decisions, open questions). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks by specifying 'full state' and including the fallback to the most recent active task.

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 this tool (when needing a detailed task state) and implicitly contrasts with lighter alternatives. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct references to sibling tools, which would make it clearer.

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