get_task_instance_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but 'Gets' at least signals a non-mutating read. It does not disclose failure behavior for a nonexistent instance, permission requirements, or whether an output schema-shaped payload is always returned; with an output schema present, return-value detail is less critical, but the read-safety profile rests on inference alone.

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 role statement is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter notes are terse and each earns its place. The '[Tool Role]:' prefix and Args formatting are slightly ceremonial but cost little.

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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns in shape (details), what each required identifier means, and where dag_id comes from. The one real gap is that it doesn't say where dag_run_id and task_id are obtained (e.g., a list-dag-runs or list_tasks call), leaving the agent to infer the chain.

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 0%, so the Args block is doing all the work — and it does add real meaning: dag_id must be the exact identifier returned by list_dags rather than a display name, dag_run_id is scoped to the selected DAG, and task_id is scoped within that DAG. That scoping/format guidance is not derivable from the bare string-typed 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Gets detailed information for a specific task instance"), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_task_instance_logs or get_task_instance_extra_links, though "detailed information" implicitly contrasts with those specialized views.

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?

Usage is only implied: the Args block tells the agent it needs exact identifiers 'as returned by list_dags', hinting at a lookup-first workflow. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_task_instance_logs, get_task_instance_extra_links, or list_task_instances_all, and no when-not guidance.

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