task_schema_get

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 explicitly discloses the read-only nature ('Pure read; no auth required'), states the return shape precisely, and lists the error case (NOT_FOUND). The only minor gap is not mentioning rate limits or idempotency behavior, but given no annotations exist and the tool is a simple read, this is solid disclosure.

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 tightly structured with labeled sections (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors), each one to two sentences. Every sentence contributes value with zero waste. Format is scannable and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only fetch tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, safe/non-auth nature, exact return contract, and error behavior. Given the low complexity, nothing material is missing.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail beyond what's in the schema, but the agent_token parameter has an alternative note in the schema (env var or header resolution). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description confirms parameter usage context.

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 a specific verb+resource combination ('Fetch a registered task schema by id') with an explicit version reference (v2.10). It clearly distinguishes from sibling `register_task_schema` by focusing on the read side. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 'When to use' section provides a concrete scenario: an assignee about to complete a schema-gated task needs to read the required shape first. It states 'Pure read; no auth required,' which is an explicit exclusion/prerequisite clarification. This is model guidance for when to invoke this tool vs. not.

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