get_fs_tasks_id

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, resource consumption, or auth requirements. It lists many error codes, which adds some transparency about failure modes, but is insufficient for a complete behavioral picture.

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 short with a clear first sentence, but the error code list is long and comma-separated without proper formatting or grouping, reducing readability.

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 that an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete for a simple get-by-id operation. However, it lacks parameter guidance and context about error handling beyond listing codes.

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?

The single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no explanation of what the id represents, its format, or how to obtain it.

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 clearly states it returns the FsTask task with a given id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_fs_tasks (list) and get_fs_tasks_id_hash (different variant).

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 compared to alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use indications. The error code list hints at possible failures but does not guide tool selection.

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