Get Task (Dalux Field)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds 'with full details', hinting at a comprehensive response. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as permissions or caching behavior.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word adds value: 'Fetch', 'one', 'Dalux Field task/safety issue', 'with full details'. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple purpose (fetch a single task) and the presence of annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description minimally covers what the tool does. However, it lacks detail on return value structure, which is not covered by an output schema. It also does not clarify the relationship to 'dalux_get_task_changes', leaving some ambiguity about the scope of 'full details'.

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 50% (projectId has a description, taskId does not). The description does not elaborate on either parameter beyond what the schema provides. For the undocumented taskId, the agent must rely on the schema's type and minLength, which is insufficient. The description should clarify the source or format of taskId.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one Dalux Field task/safety issue with full details', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'dalux_list_tasks' (which lists) and 'dalux_get_task_changes' (which gets changes). The purpose is specific and 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when it is appropriate to fetch a single task vs listing tasks or getting changes, nor does it give any prerequisites or context. This leaves the agent uncertain about the correct selection.

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