Retrieve the in-memory report from a completed WorkBuddy delegation session. Input the task ID to access execution results, approvals, and status for follow-up actions.
Read the in-memory report produced by a completed prompt. Reports are not persisted in the task registry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the report is in-memory and not persisted, and 'Read' implies non-mutation. However, it does not cover failure cases (e.g., incomplete prompt or unknown taskId) or whether reading affects the report.
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?
Two tightly written sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the critical limitation in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 and no output schema, the description should say a bit more about report availability/format. It covers purpose and a key storage caveat, but an agent must infer what a successful response contains and when the report may be absent.
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%, and the description never explicitly defines taskId; it only implies via 'completed prompt' that the taskId identifies that prompt. The single parameter's name is conventional and self-explanatory, so an agent can infer it, but the description should have stated the mapping directly.
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 ('Read') and resource ('in-memory report produced by a completed prompt'), and is clearly distinct from the sibling session lifecycle tools (start/send/status/cancel/close/permission). The non-persistence note further sharpens what this tool does.
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?
Provides clear usage context: the tool is for reports after a prompt has completed, and 'not persisted in the task registry' warns against expecting later retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.