task_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey read-only retrieval of a complete record rather than a trimmed summary, plus the field families returned. However, it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the task_id is unknown, or pagination/truncation concerns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the key scope qualifier, then sibling disambiguation. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and the single required parameter is documented in the schema. The description supplies the sibling routing context an agent needs; only edge-case behavior (missing task, access limits) is 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 description coverage is 100% (task_id is documented), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no format, ID-namespace, or lookup nuance beyond what the schema declares; baseline 3 applies for a single fully-documented parameter.

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 and resource ('Get one task's full record') and immediately disambiguates scope with the parenthetical 'every task field, not a trimmed row.' It names two siblings and what they return instead, so the agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

It routes the agent by contrasting this tool with task_list_project (trimmed rows) and task_memo_read (memo history), which implies when to choose this one. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need X' statement or any prerequisites for when not to use it.

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