Read a Worker task by taskId to inspect current phase, plan, latest action, progress evidence, lease, pending Codex interaction, verifier, and result.
Read a Worker task including current phase, plan, latest action, heartbeat/progress evidence, lease, pending Codex interaction, verifier and result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds value by disclosing what the read surfaces (heartbeat/progress evidence, lease, pending Codex interaction, verifier, result), but says nothing about permissions, staleness, or freshness of the returned status.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the enumeration of returned fields is a good use of limited space given there is no output schema. Slight length in the field list but every item is informative.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, spelling out the returned contents is the right instinct and largely covers the response side. It is still incomplete on the input side (taskId provenance) and on routing versus sibling status tools.
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 taskId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not explain its format or where it comes from. The description does not compensate at all - it never mentions taskId, how to obtain it, or any identifier syntax, leaving the required parameter undocumented.
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 ('Read a Worker task') and enumerates the contents of that read (phase, plan, latest action, heartbeat, lease, pending Codex interaction, verifier, result). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like worker_panel or delegation_status, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no exclusions. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call worker_status, worker_panel, or delegation_status to inspect worker state; only the required taskId hints that this is single-task inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.