BearQ: Get Task

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the call returns immediately and does not block on task completion, which is important for agents deciding between this and a waiting/blocking tool.

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 core description is concise, front-loaded, and contains only useful information. The separate 'Parameters' section adds minor redundancy since the schema already documents taskId, but the overall structure is clean and quick to scan.

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 simple, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is returned, highlights non-blocking behavior, and the schema covers the parameter. No output schema exists, but the description gives a reasonable high-level view of the response contents.

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% and the single parameter taskId is fully described in the schema. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') with a clear resource: a task's current state, metadata, and activity log. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it returns immediately and does not block on completion, distinguishing it from bearq_wait_for_task and bearq_get_task_status.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you want the currently available snapshot of a task without waiting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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