Tasks Describe Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns specific task details, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and the key fields it describes.

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?

The tool has an output schema, fully described parameters, and clear annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It provides enough context for an agent to know this is a read-only task introspection tool.

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 all three parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema is fully documented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('task') and lists the concrete fields covered: definition, schedule, warehouse, and definition SQL. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like tasks_create_task or tasks_drop_task, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from tasks_list_tasks.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as tasks_list_tasks or other describe tools. It implies usage by virtue of being a describe operation but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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