Get EA task detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific fields returned, which is useful but not behavioral transparency. No rate limits, pagination, or auth details are mentioned, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns'), followed by a specific resource and a parenthetical list of example fields. It contains no filler or redundant words.

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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned and the scope, but could be slightly more explicit about the return format or what 'drawer-level' means. Still, it is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% because task_id is described as 'Remediation task ID (ObjectId)'. The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'drawer-level task detail for a single remediation task', listing concrete fields (status history, severity, CVEs, mitigation type). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_ea_tasks_list, cymulate_ea_tasks_get_exposures, and cymulate_ea_tasks_get_mitigations.

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 'for a single remediation task' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, implying it is for individual task detail rather than list or bulk operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses a 5.

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