get_task_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It comprehensively explains the tool's behavior, listing all return fields and the output format. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation with no 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 well-structured: a brief summary, usage examples, returned fields, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains concise without unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not provided), the description covers all necessary context, including what the tool returns and how to use it.

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?

The input schema provides only types and 'required' but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter and providing an example for dag_run_id, adding significant semantic value.

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 purpose with specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific task instance execution.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_task (task definition) and get_task_logs by focusing on execution details.

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 provides a bullet list of user queries that map to this tool, offering clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools, which would improve clarity.

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