Retrieve the full detail of a Gear Ledger task by its task ID, including state history and artifacts, for read-only provenance queries.
Read-only: full detail of one Gear Ledger task by task_id (including state history and artifacts). On machines without the CWI ledger CLI, reads the public CWI gear-ledger repo (no auth, read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task_id to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, requires no auth when falling back to the public repo, and only that fallback occurs on machines without the CWI ledger CLI. It could additionally mention failure/error behavior, but the safety and access profile are well covered.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. The read-only nature and core purpose are front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is added as a clearly separable second sentence.
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 single-parameter fetch tool without an output schema, the description gives enough context about the response scope ('full detail', 'state history and artifacts') and the operational fallback behavior. It is not exhaustive about exact response formatting or error cases, but those are reasonable gaps for this simple tool.
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 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description reaffirms that task_id selects the task, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, keeping this at the baseline score.
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 states a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('one Gear Ledger task'), and the identifying key ('task_id'). It differentiates itself from the sibling 'ledger_tasks' by emphasizing singular full-detail retrieval including state history and artifacts.
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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when the agent needs the full detail of exactly one Gear Ledger task by ID. It does not explicitly name alternate tools or exclusion conditions, but the singular vs. plural sibling split makes the intended usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.