Get A2A Task

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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as readOnly and idempotent, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the full set of task statuses, the shape of artifacts, conversation messages, created/updated timestamps, and concrete error strings. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat long, but the extra detail is justified because there is no output schema and the error-handling information is genuinely useful.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates fully by documenting the response structure, status states, error cases, and typical invocation examples. It also explains where to obtain the taskId, leaving little ambiguity for an agent selecting or calling this 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully, including types and descriptions. The description mostly restates these in the Args section, but it does add illustrative example parameter values, which is helpful but not a major semantic addition beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the status and details of an A2A task by its ID.' It clearly states what the tool does and covers the key returned data (status, progress, artifacts), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools.

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 provides explicit use cases with 'Use when' examples and a direct exclusion: 'Don't use when: You want to send a new message (use a2a_send_message instead)'. This gives an agent clear routing guidance relative to a sibling tool.

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