get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the result is compact and excludes model transcripts and tool logs. This helps set expectations about the output's scope. It doesn't mention errors or auth, but for a simple get operation, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Get a compact task receipt') and adds a useful qualifier about what is excluded. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the purpose and a key limitation. It might benefit from a brief note about what a 'task receipt' includes, but the current phrasing is sufficient for most use cases.

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 has one parameter (task_id) with format uuid, but the description mentions no parameter details. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't add any meaning to the parameter. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description offers no semantic enhancement 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a compact task receipt.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task receipt'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like continue_task and get_diff by clarifying it returns a receipt rather than transcripts or logs.

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 clear context for use: it returns a compact receipt and explicitly notes what it does not include (model transcripts or tool logs). While it doesn't name alternative tools, this implies it should be used when a concise summary is needed, not when detailed logs are required.

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