get_task

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation with 'Read' and 'current durable state', which suggests non-destructive behavior and possibly eventual consistency, but doesn't state whether it's cached, whether it fails for cancelled/completed tasks, or what 'durable' entails operationally. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no waste. Efficient and to the point, though it could benefit from a bit more clarity on what 'durable state' means in practice.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, with no annotations and a terse description, critical behavioral context is missing: whether the task_id is an ID or name, whether it returns errors for missing tasks, and how it relates to siblings like list_tasks. For a read tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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 0% and there is one required parameter (task_id). The description adds no meaning to task_id beyond the schema's type string. For a single required string parameter, the baseline is 4 for zero params, but here the parameter exists and is undocumented, so 3 reflects adequate but minimal coverage.

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?

States a verb (Read) and resource (coordination task) but is vague about scope. 'current durable state' is somewhat distinctive phrasing but doesn't clearly differentiate from list_tasks or update_task_status beyond being a read of a single task. The purpose is understandable but not sharply defined.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like list_tasks or how this differs from other task-related siblings. An agent must infer that this retrieves a single task by ID, but there's no explicit routing information.

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