ds_get_task_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Read full parameters'), and provides the return structure including task_params, timeout, etc. It also discloses the scope limitation (returns only one task, not the DAG), which is a useful behavioral trait beyond what schema provides.

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-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat long due to the JSON example, but this is justified given the lack of an output schema. The front-loaded purpose sentence ensures the main point is immediately clear.

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 read tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenario, parameter semantics, and return shape. It does not discuss error cases or permissions, but these are less critical for a straightforward read operation. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so parameter descriptions in the tool text are critical. The Args section adds meaningful context: 'workflow_code' is described as 'Process-definition code' and 'task_name' is noted to require 'exact match'. These clarifications go beyond the schema's bare titles and help correct usage.

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 a specific action: 'Read full parameters of a single task'. It explicitly distinguishes this from a larger operation by noting 'returns only that task, not the whole DAG', which differentiates it from sibling tools like ds_get_workflow.

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 a concrete scenario: 'verify a task change took effect', and the rationale 'avoiding pulling a huge DAG payload' implies when to prefer this over a DAG-fetching tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the sibling context makes the implied alternative clear.

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