get_human_request

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

With no annotations, the description does carry useful burden: it declares read-only behavior, immutability of scope, and that it never starts a run. It omits expected behavior for an unknown task_id, error conditions, or whether protected reply evidence has access restrictions, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. The safety constraint is placed immediately after the core statement.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for describing return values; it does so by naming the fields exposed (scope, phase, version, reply evidence). It lacks error or not-found behavior, which keeps it just below complete.

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?

The single task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its exact 32-hex-character pattern. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Read a registered human request") and enumerates what is exposed: immutable scope, phase, version, and protected reply evidence. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_human_result or register_human_request, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_human_result, cancel_human_request, or get_task. The only clue is "never starts a run," which describes side effects rather than usage selection.

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