output

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 'Read', implying a non-mutating operation, but does not state whether the task must be finished, whether it blocks, what happens if the id is invalid, or what the output format is. The description is too sparse to convey essential behavioral traits.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context that should be present given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions. The brevity works against the agent rather than aiding it, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the 'id' is, what 'captured output' means, how to obtain the output, or what the response will look like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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 parameter 'id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably a task run ID) or how to obtain it. The agent has no information about the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond a minLength of 1.

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 'Read' and the resource 'captured output from a task run', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run, list, and stop. However, it is slightly vague about what 'captured output' includes (e.g., stdout, stderr, logs), so it does not fully specify the resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list or run. It does not mention prerequisites like the task needing to be completed, nor does it contrast with siblings. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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