Get a task's full status history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (status transitions, actor, and timing) and uses 'See' to imply a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state non-mutation or edge-case behavior, but for a history getter this is mostly 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 one focused sentence that front-loads the core behavior and adds a useful usage example after the dash. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, who/when, and when it is useful. Minor gaps include no explicit ordering or mention of how missing taskIds are handled, but these do not prevent correct selection and invocation.

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% and the description does not explicitly define taskId or its format. However, the phrase 'a task went through' indirectly maps the taskId parameter to the task whose history is returned, and the single self-explanatory parameter limits ambiguity.

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 identifies the action and resource: seeing every status transition for a task, including who made each change and when. It is clearly about task status history rather than current state, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_file_history or get_context.

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 when-to-use condition: when a task's current state alone doesn't explain how it got there, with an abandoned/reclaimed example. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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