Inspect execution tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does signal a read-only inspect operation via 'Get' and 'list', and indicates filters can be combined, but it leaves ambiguity about the exact combination semantics (AND vs OR) and omits return format, pagination, and permission considerations.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads both operations and their key qualifiers. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition.

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 inspection tool, the core purpose is present, but the absence of an output schema and annotations leaves gaps: exact filter combination behavior, response shape, and whether listing is paginated. The description is sufficient for basic invocation 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 description coverage is low at 33% (only 'name' has a description). The description adds meaning by mapping task_id to 'by id', and name and status to filtering criteria. It also implies task_id is mutually exclusive with filters via 'or', which is valuable beyond the 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 two specific operations: retrieving a single task by id, or listing tasks filtered by recruit and/or status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_task/task_cancel, which mutate tasks, while 'tasks' is about inspection.

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 by presenting two invocation modes (by id vs. filtered listing), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or exclude cases. There is no reference to related siblings, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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