Yougile Task

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes no mutation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the full contents of the card and the optional chat-message inclusion. It does not contradict the annotation and does not hide any side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only operation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then compactly lists exact output contents. There is no filler, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary explanation.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description and schema together are largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The description lists the returned task-card fields, and the schema defines how to specify the task and optional messages. It does not explain return formatting or sibling relationships, but those are not critical for 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 100%, so the description does not need to carry the burden of parameter documentation. The description's 'optionally the latest chat messages' repeats the messages parameter's schema meaning, and the task parameter format is already fully documented in the schema. No additional semantic value is added 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Open a task card') and enumerates exactly what is returned: location, status, assignees, deadline, hours, checklists, stickers, description, and optionally chat messages. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like yougile_create_task or yougile_update_task, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 purpose implies it is used when a user needs a single task's full card, and the optional chat message mention hints it can substitute for a dedicated chat lookup. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over yougile_find_tasks, yougile_tasks, or yougile_task_chat, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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