Yougile Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description's 'Open' language is consistent with. Beyond the annotation, the description adds genuine behavioral context: it discloses that sticker types the YouGile API cannot describe (numbers, free text) surface by id under other_stickers, a non-obvious API quirk. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, with the core purpose and feature enumeration front-loaded and the caveat about other_stickers appended. The comma-separated feature list is dense but efficient for a detail-returning tool; no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint=true and no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying what the returned card contains and even flagging the sticker quirk. It leaves nothing critical unsaid given the tool's low complexity, though a brief note on the response shape could push it further.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal semantic value: 'optionally the latest chat messages' mirrors the messages parameter's default=0 behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden and the tool description does not need to compensate.

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 the exact contents returned (status, assignees, deadline, hours, checklists, stickers, description, optional chat messages). It visually distinguishes itself from siblings like yougile_tasks (listing), yougile_task_chat (chat-focused), and yougile_update_task (write operation) through the feature set it names.

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: call this when you have a task number/id and want the full card details. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and does not route the agent to siblings such as yougile_find_tasks for locating tasks or yougile_task_chat for deeper history.

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