get_task_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that files are retrieved 'via flows (orchestrator)', which hints at the mechanism but does not explain behavior beyond what annotations cover. There is no mention of permissions, limitations, or any side effects.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information. It is minimally adequate but not well-organized.

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 tool has a simple input schema (one parameter), no output schema, and annotations covering read/idempotent, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what constitutes 'files related to a task', what 'via flows' means operationally, or what the return format is. The absence of output schema places a burden on the description to describe the output, which is unmet.

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%; the only parameter 'task_id' is described as 'Task ID' in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarity to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: getting all files related to a task via flows (orchestrator). The verb 'Get' and resource 'files related to task' are specific. However, the phrase 'via flows (orchestrator)' is ambiguous and could be more precise. Among siblings, it distinguishes itself from similar tools like get_sidequest_files and get_files_by_flow.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sidequest_files or get_files_by_flow. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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