task_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the incremental read capability via byte offset, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it describe any prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects. The verb 'read' implies safety but does not guarantee transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key modifier about incremental reads. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or padding.

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 tool, the description provides sufficient context: it names the file, implies the directory, and explains the offset parameter. With no output schema and no annotations, it could elaborate on the return format or error behavior, but for standard use cases this is adequate.

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 input schema provides zero descriptions for the two parameters. The description adds meaning by linking 'out.log' to the first parameter (likely jobDir is the directory containing that log) and explaining 'offset' as a byte offset for incremental reads. However, it does not explicitly define jobDir, leaving some ambiguity.

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 action ('Read task output') and the specific resource ('out.log'), with an additional detail about byte-offset support. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_run or task_kill, which handle lifecycle operations rather than reading output.

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 implies usage when needing to read a task's output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_wait or task_autopsy, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is inferred rather than articulated.

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