explain_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of signaling safety. The verb "Show" implies a read-only inspection and does not suggest mutation or execution. However, it does not explicitly state that the task is not executed or that no side effects occur, which would be valuable for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter inspection tool with a complete input schema and an output schema present. The description sufficiently identifies what the tool returns: the exact command and metadata for a named task. It could add a note about non-execution, but overall the definition is adequate.

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 100%, and the schema already documents repo and task well, including the instruction to always specify repo. The tool description adds contextual framing but no additional parameter-level detail 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: "Show the exact command and metadata configured for a named task." It clearly indicates inspection of task configuration. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_tasks or explain_pass, but the "exact command and metadata" phrasing makes the intent fairly distinct.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of siblings such as list_tasks, run_task, or explain_pass. The context is clear only in a general sense, but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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