Get a SpicyAPI task

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses critical behaviors: the assets URLs are directly usable without an API key, URLs may expire and require re-query, and unknown and inaccessible IDs both return 404. It also notes the webhook shortcut. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains how to use the output URLs, and the third addresses webhook replacement and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff.

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?

With only one parameter, an output schema present, and rich annotations covering safety, the description addresses all operational needs: retry logic for pending/expired assets, the webhook alternative, and error handling (404 for any invalid ID). Nothing an agent needs to call the tool successfully is missing.

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 sole parameter 'taskId' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description adds essential meaning: it refers to a task created by the current API key, and that unknown or inaccessible IDs yield 404. While it doesn't specify how to obtain the taskId (e.g., from task_create or tasks_list), it gives enough context for correct usage, compensating well for the schema gap.

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 explicitly states 'Read a task created by the current API key' with a clear verb and resource, and adds a specific feature ('including ready output.assets[].url links') that distinguishes it from siblings like tasks_list (list tasks) and task_wait (wait for task). The purpose is unambiguous and separates it from alternatives.

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 usage context by noting 'A verified complete v2 webhook already contains the result,' implying when this tool is unnecessary, and advises to 'query again if assets are pending or URLs have expired,' giving retry guidance. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the webhook alternative and retry conditions are clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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