get-task-instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains return content and the map_index behavior (parent vs. mapped instance), but does not mention permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. The detail about return fields and the parent summary adds some transparency beyond a bare statement.

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 with a clear main sentence, a short overview of return values, and an Args/Returns layout. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Get details' followed by 'Returns detailed information'), but every section earns its place and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers what the tool returns, how map_index works, and lists all parameters. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior, but for a get-by-ID tool it provides sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful nuance (map_index must be >= 0) and clarifies the parent-summary behavior, but mostly restates parameter names and descriptions already in the schema. It also mentions a 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema, which could be slightly confusing.

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 function: 'Get details of a specific task instance.' It specifies the resource (task instance) and the action (get details), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list-task-instances and get-task-logs by listing exactly what details are returned (state, dates, duration, try number).

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 clear context for when to use the map_index parameter ('For dynamically mapped tasks...') and explains behavior with and without it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the guidance on mapped vs. unmapped tasks gives sufficient situational context.

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