cigchat_flow_ai_task_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the required 'Manage Flow' scope and the POST method, indicating an authenticated operation. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether the operation has side effects beyond being a 'View'.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential context (endpoint and scope) without extraneous words. Every element 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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify what 'details' are returned or any error/edge-case behavior. Given the lack of output schema, this leaves a gap in the expected response context.

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% and the single parameter is well-documented in the schema (accepts namespace id or exact name). The description adds no new parameter details, so the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('View Ai Task details') and identifies the resource (Ai Task), distinguishing it from sibling tools like flow_ai_tasks which likely list tasks. The HTTP endpoint and scope requirement further clarify the specific operation.

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 usage for viewing task details via the word 'View' and provides the endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as flow_ai_tasks. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative references are given.

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