get_task_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scan method (manifest records + prefix scan), clarifies that 'existing' is the list of actually existing files/directories (implying some recorded paths may not exist), and uses verbs like 'list' and 'view' to imply a read-only operation. This goes beyond a simple tool name.

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 three sentences long: purpose/method, return structure, and usage context. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description voluntarily explains the return object {task_id, manifest_paths, existing} and its meaning. Combined with the purpose, method, and pre-cleanup use case, it is fully complete for a simple list 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that task_id is used as a prefix scan pattern and appears in the return object. This gives the parameter practical meaning, though it doesn't specify format or validation rules. For a simple task_id parameter, that is sufficient.

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 function: listing files/directories generated by a task on disk, using manifest records and a {task_id}* prefix scan. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanup_note or get_task_status, which have different purposes.

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 explicitly says to use it before cleanup to see which storage a task occupies, providing clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the pre-cleanup use case is a clear directive.

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