cos_task_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context by specifying the output content (frontmatter fields and full markdown body), which goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core action, scope, and usage context. Every phrase serves a purpose, with 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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, and usage context. The only notable gap is explicit parameter behavior, but this does not undermine overall usability for a straightforward inspection tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only indirectly references task_id via 'single task' and the body via 'full markdown body'. It never explains that include_body can be set to false to omit the body, leaving ambiguity about a key parameter.

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 specifies the action ('Show'), the object ('a single task's frontmatter fields and full markdown body'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on a single task and positioning it as an alternative to raw ls/grep/Read. This is a specific, well-differentiated purpose.

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 phrase 'in-session alternative to raw ls/grep/Read on docs/tasks' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool over generic command-line or file access methods. It does not explicitly mention sibling task tools or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a read-only inspection scenario.

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