md_task_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries a higher burden. It reveals a security-relevant trait (ownership proof required), but does not disclose error behavior, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or what happens if ownership is not proven. The word 'Query' implies non-mutating, but more detail on failure modes would improve transparency.

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 of eight words, immediately front-loaded with the verb 'Query'. It contains zero filler and conveys the primary action, the target, and a key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 only two required parameters and an output schema, which lowers complexity. However, the ownership-proof mechanism is vague—it does not explain where 'owner_capability' comes from or how to obtain it, and there is no mention of error handling or prerequisites beyond the ownership condition. The description is minimally sufficient but not complete for an AI agent to confidently invoke the tool in all situations.

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%, and the description only vaguely ties 'owner_capability' to proving ownership without explaining its format, origin, or validity. 'task_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but neither parameter receives meaningful semantic elaboration. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Query') and names a specific resource ('one persisted task'), with a clear condition ('after proving ownership'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like md_task_submit, md_task_cancel, and md_task_retry, which perform different operations.

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 implies when to use the tool (for querying a persisted task) and adds a prerequisite (ownership proof), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the large number of task-related sibling tools, explicit guidance about using this instead of submit/cancel/retry would be beneficial.

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