get_task_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-like behavior and mentions included data fields, but does not address potential side effects, permissions, or limitations such as data volume or pagination. The behavioral traits are adequately implied but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and key details, and the second sentence adds the necessary requirement. Every word is functional, with no waste.

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 simplicity (no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it includes, and what is required. It lacks some depth about error handling or access scope, but is largely complete for a retrieval operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema; it merely restates the task ID requirement and lists output fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed information about a specific task'. It lists included fields (rewards, subtasks, timestamps, completion history) and states the requirement for a task ID, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_history or list_all_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 implicitly indicates use by stating 'Requires task ID', but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_history (for history only) or search_tasks. No when-not-to-use or alternative naming provided.

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