get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists what is returned but does not state that this operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions. It offers no context about side effects, rate limits, or error behavior beyond the implicit 'get' semantics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and the specific information returned. There is no fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

The description adequately summarizes the high-level return content (task state, attempts, dependencies, artifacts) for a simple get-by-ID tool. Since an output schema exists (as indicated in the context), the exact structure is presumably documented there. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description does not mention task_id at all, leaving its role to be inferred from the name. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and fails to compensate for the missing schema description.

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 the verb 'Return' and the resource 'task', and enumerates the specific data returned (state, attempts, dependencies, committed artifacts). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_tasks (which lists tasks) and get_artifact (which retrieves a specific artifact).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or get_artifact. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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