get_task

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

With no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits such as the polling behavior, the significance of the 'pending' status, and the visibility scope ('as poster'). It does not detail error handling or side effects, but 'get' implies read-only, and the workflow context adds value beyond a bare 'get'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by actionable usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return contents at a high level and provides the essential workflow context. It lacks edge-case details like error behavior, but the agent can correctly invoke and use the tool based on the description alone.

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 schema has one parameter (task_id) with no description coverage. The description implicitly references the task_id in the workflow ('after authorize_task') but does not explicitly define the parameter beyond its name. Since the parameter is self-explanatory and the workflow context adds meaning, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the live state of a task' including the task row, submissions, and per-unit claims. It specifies the agent's visibility and distinguishes it from siblings by tying it to the authorize_task and review_submission workflow.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Poll this after authorize_task until a submission with status pending appears' and then proceed to review_submission. This provides precise when-to-use context and names the follow-up tool, making the alternative clear.

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