a2a_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns state and output, and 'get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior for unknown task IDs, whether the call is idempotent, or whether it affects task execution in any way.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key precondition that the task must already exist.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the tool description is too sparse. An agent cannot reliably know what value 'agent' expects, what the returned state/output structure looks like, or what happens when a task does not exist.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The task_id parameter is reasonably inferable from the tool purpose, but 'agent' is ambiguous: it is not explained as an identifier, name, or what agent list it refers to. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('current state and output of a previously started A2A task'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like a2a_send_message, a2a_cancel_task, a2a_list_agents, and a2a_add_agent, none of which retrieve task state.

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 phrase 'previously started' implies this should be used to poll or inspect tasks that were already kicked off, which gives a minimal context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over sibling tools, when not to use it, or whether it is intended for polling workflows.

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