a2a_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves state but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every word earns its place without 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, errors), output format, and usage context. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured support, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (taskId and agentId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining why both IDs are required or their relationship. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get the current state of a task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), specifying it retrieves the 'current state' rather than just the task itself. It distinguishes from siblings like a2a_send_task (creation) and a2a_cancel_task (modification), but does not explicitly differentiate from a2a_agent_info, which might also retrieve task-related info indirectly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid taskId and agentId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like a2a_send_task_subscribe for real-time updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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