a2a_get_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the scope of data (status, history, messages, artifacts) but does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, pagination, or return format. This is adequate for a simple getter but not thorough.

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?

One crisp sentence with no filler. Front-loads the verb and resource, and includes useful detail (messages and artifacts) without bloat.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is retrieved and what it includes. It might benefit from stating the return shape, but the description is sufficient given the simplicity and sibling context.

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% with task_id described as 'Task ID to retrieve'. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that it gets a task, so baseline 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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('status and full history of an A2A task'), including specific content ('messages and artifacts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like a2a_cancel_task, a2a_submit_task, and a2a_list_tasks.

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 the use case: retrieve a single task's status/history. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but the sibling tool names make the differentiator obvious. It lacks explicit 'use when' guidance but conveys clear context.

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