get_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds that the response includes 'proof-of-work submissions and dispute history', but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects. Acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

Single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the tool does and what extra details are included. Could briefly mention that it returns all fields, but not required.

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 has one parameter with description 'The unique task ID'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Tool description adds no extra semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'task', and specifies scope 'full details including proof-of-work submissions and dispute history'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (list summary) and approve_task (action).

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?

Usage is implied from context: retrieve full details of a single task. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., list_tasks for summaries) or when not to use. Lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements.

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