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 — and it does so thoroughly. It discloses pure-read behavior, decryption-on-the-fly, and critically the auth restriction (agent must be requester or assignee; relay refuses third-party leaks). It even enumerates the actual error codes (NOT_PARTY, NOT_FOUND, RATE_LIMITED), which is rich behavioral disclosure beyond any annotation could offer.

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?

Well-organized with clear section headers (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors). Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no repetition beyond the intentional emphasis of return payload. Efficient 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?

For a single-row lookup with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it specifies the return shape ({ success: true, task: TaskRecord }), the decryption behavior, auth constraints, and all error conditions. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds some context by tying task_id to the post_task response and noting agent_token is optional/resolvable from env or header, which is useful. This is above the baseline 3 for full coverage but not extensive extra semantics.

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+resource ('Look up a single task by id') and clearly distinguishes from sibling get_tasks (singular vs many). The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's niche is well defined.

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 'When to use' section gives concrete scenarios (heartbeat confirmation, checking a known task_id from post_task), and names the alternative get_tasks for browsing many tasks. Provides clear when-to-use/when-not-to guidance.

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