BearQ: Get Task

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by clarifying it does not block and returns current state and activity log. No mention of auth or errors, but context is sufficient for the safety profile.

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?

Description is concise (three lines), front-loaded with purpose, includes key behavioral trait (non-blocking), and structured with sections for toolset and parameters. Every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, description covers core functionality. However, it lacks explanation of return value structure or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent. Adequate but not fully complete.

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%. Description repeats parameter name and same description as schema ('BearQ task ID'), adding no extra meaning or examples. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a task's current state, metadata, and activity log, using specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bearq_get_task_status, which likely returns only status, so purpose is strong but not fully distinguished.

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?

Description contrasts with blocking alternative (bearq_wait_for_task) by stating it returns immediately. But no guidance on when to use this vs bearq_get_task_status or other siblings. 'Toolset: Tasks' provides grouping but no exclusions.

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