Read Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is reading, which implies non-destructive behavior. The input schema reveals that both open and archived tasks are searched, but the description doesn't disclose that, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. Reading a file is inherently safe, but the description could state that it doesn't modify anything. It's adequate but minimal.

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 directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has no fluff. It earns its place.

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 read operation with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. The schema provides parameter details, and the output schema defines return values. However, the description doesn't mention that both open and archived tasks are searched, which is a key behavioral detail. Since the schema covers that, it's not a critical gap, but it would be helpful context for an agent to know without opening the schema.

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 schema already documents the 'filename' parameter, including examples and the fact that both open and archived tasks are searched. The description does not add additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Per calibration, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description offers no extra value.

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 verb 'read' and the resource 'task file', and explains it reads the full content. It distinguishes from siblings like inspect_task and list_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The use of 'full content' suggests it's the complete read operation, which adds specificity.

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: when you need the full content of a task filecars. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like inspect_task or list_tasks, which might provide summaries or metadata. Since the tool name and title already convey 'read' vs 'list' or 'inspect', the usage context is implied but not explicit. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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