get_task_by_prefix

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'searches through tasks to find a match,' implying it returns a single match, but it does not describe behavior when multiple tasks share a prefix or when no match exists. This is minimal disclosure for a search-like operation.

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 two short sentences, immediately stating the search mechanism and providing a concrete example. There is no redundancy or filler, and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must clarify return behavior and limits. It explains the match criterion but omits how ambiguity is resolved, what happens on no match, and the shape of the returned task object. For a simple lookup, it is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both parameters have clear descriptions, including 'project_id' being optional with portal-wide search. The description adds a useful format example for the prefix, but it largely repeats the schema's information and provides no additional semantics beyond the structured definitions.

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 tool's action with a specific verb ('Find and get'), a resource ('task'), and a distinct mechanism ('by its prefix/key'). The concrete example 'CA6-T282' differentiates it from sibling tools like get_task or list_tasks, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a usage context: when a partial task key is known. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with get_task (exact ID) or search (full-text), and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The intended use is inferable but not openly stated.

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