get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload shape (status, start/end times, retry info, step-by-step execution details), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the usage trigger follows, and the return summary comes last in a logical order.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return contents. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by the inline return description.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents task_id including its provenance. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the status and details of a Spinnaker orchestration task') and enumerates concrete task types (deploy, resize, rollback, delete). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling get_execution, so an agent must infer the task-vs-execution boundary.

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 a clear contextual trigger: 'Use this to monitor the progress of a long-running infrastructure operation.' However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., when get_execution is the better pick).

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