get_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that reply_text is populated only when the task is completed, and notes that the tool also works for incoming tasks. Error behavior and auth are not addressed, but for a read-only fetch this is adequate.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact behavioral note and the incoming-task extension. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present. The description covers the primary polling use case, the completed-triggered reply_text behavior, and the incoming-task case. Nothing critical is missing for the tool's complexity.

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. It only adds 'by id', which largely restates the obvious role of the a2a_task_id parameter. No detail is given about the ID's format or where it comes from, though the single, self-explanatory parameter keeps this acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('specific A2A task by id'). It clearly distinguishes use cases for polling a sent DM and handling incoming tasks, setting it apart from sibling list tools like get_inbox.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use it: to poll a DM you sent and see if the recipient replied, with a note that it also works for incoming tasks. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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