get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes polling behavior and reply_text population, but lacks details on error handling, authentication, or side effects (none listed). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Given the simple tool (1 param, has output schema), the description covers key use cases: polling sent DMs and viewing incoming tasks. It mentions reply_text in the output, partially leveraging the existing output schema. Could add more on error states but overall complete.

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?

Single param a2a_task_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds context by explaining it refers to an A2A task from a DM or incoming task, but does not specify format or source. More helpful than bare schema.

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 'Fetch a specific A2A task by id,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_conversation and list_friends by focusing on tasks.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this to poll a DM you sent and see if the recipient replied' and 'Also works for incoming tasks.' It tells when to use and gives context about reply_text when task is completed.

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