Get Task Outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by stating 'Read'. It adds behavioral nuance by describing the fallback to 'most recent evidence-backed outcome receipts' when taskId is not used, which provides context beyond the annotation. However, it does not clarify what 'evidence-backed' entails or how limit affects results.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb 'Read'. Every word adds meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is an exemplar of concise writing.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description still feels incomplete. It leaves the 'limit' parameter unexplained and does not mention what the returned receipts look like. Given the lack of output schema and param descriptions, the text should clarify these aspects to be fully useful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains taskId implicitly through the 'by taskId' clause and the fallback behavior, but never mentions the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent is left guessing whether limit controls pagination, number of receipts, or something else. This is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'task outcome', clearly distinguishing the two operation modes: by taskId or most recent evidence-backed receipts. It differentiates from sibling tools like record_task_outcome (write counterpart) and get_agent_outcome_metrics (aggregate metrics).

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 implies the tool is for reading task outcomes but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. It mentions two selection modes, giving some contextual guidance, but lacks direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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