get_task_raw_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return format and the ANSI-stripping transformation, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about the practical traits of a 'complete' log payload, such as whether the size is unbounded or how large outputs are bounded.

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, zero filler, and the core behavior (complete logs, plain text, ANSI removed) is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. Nothing needs to be cut.

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?

A read-only tool with two params and no output schema needs the description to convey the return shape, and 'complete task logs as plain text with ANSI escape codes removed' does that minimally. It is incomplete on sibling differentiation and payload-size expectations, which are the remaining risks for an agent calling this.

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 0%, so the schema provides only names and types. The description partly compensates by embedding the path template GET /project/{project_id}/tasks/{task_id}/raw_output, which ties both required parameters to their roles. It still gives no format hints, such as whether task_id is a numeric ID, and no guidance for invalid or missing IDs.

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 concrete verb and resource: it retrieves a task's complete logs as plain text with ANSI codes stripped. That is specific enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_task_output (or get_task), so an agent cannot tell from this text which one returns raw versus processed output.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With get_task_output, get_task, and list_task_stages among the siblings, the description should say when raw output is the right choice (for example, for unfiltered console logs), but it offers no routing criteria.

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