wes_get_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return fields (name, command, stdout, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, error cases, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. Acceptable for a get operation but lacks depth.

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?

Very concise: one sentence for purpose, a bullet list of return fields, and an Args section. No unnecessary words, easy to parse.

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 output schema, description adequately lists key return fields. Could mention if logs are truncated or error handling, but sufficient for a simple get detail 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section explains 'run_id' and 'task_id' minimally as identifiers. Adds some value but could be more detailed (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline 3 since names are self-explanatory.

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 explicitly states 'Get details of a specific task within a workflow run' with a clear verb and resource. It lists specific log information returned, distinguishing it from sibling tool 'wes_list_tasks' which lists tasks without details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wes_get_run_log' or 'wes_list_tasks'. No prerequisites, limitations, or context for use provided.

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