tm_get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details,' which implies a read operation, but it does not describe possible errors (e.g., task not found), return structure, or any prerequisites. For a simple getter this is thin; it adds no safety or failure mode context beyond the intuitive read-only nature.

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 says exactly what the tool does without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool and earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It does not explain what 'full details' include, how to obtain taskId, or any error handling. The low complexity keeps it from being a 1, but there are clear gaps.

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 has a single required string parameter 'taskId' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention taskId at all, nor does it explain where the ID comes from (e.g., tm_list_tasks). The parameter name gives some implicit meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of one TaskMarket task.' It explicitly scopes to a single task, which distinguishes it from siblings like tm_list_tasks and tm_submit_work. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use this when you need details for a specific task' or exclude cases like listing all tasks. The agent must infer from the name and siblings.

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