get_task_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that both incoming and outgoing references are returned, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose the response format, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the task must exist), leaving gaps for an agent.

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 action and purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential purpose and scope but omits details about the structure of the returned references (e.g., whether they are grouped by direction, what fields they contain). This lack of output clarity could hinder an agent's ability to interpret results, so it is not fully complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter taskId, which is described simply as 'Task ID'. The description does not add additional semantics or details about taskId beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves references for a task, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('references') with a scope ('for a task'). It also conveys the purpose ('to understand dependencies'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_task (task details) and add/remove_task_reference (mutations).

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 implies usage for understanding task dependencies but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task or list_tasks. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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