builtin__bg_task_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: the tool returns full details plus stdout/stderr output. However, it doesn't mention error handling, whether output could be partial for running tasks, or any access limitations, but the 'Get' verb safely implies a read-only operation.

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 conveys the action, target, scope, and return content with no wasted words. Every element 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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It specifies what is returned (full details, stdout/stderr). It could mention behavior for missing/invalid taskIds, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by taskId', which adds minimal context to the parameter's name in the schema. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description doesn't elaborate on the format or source of taskId, leaving meaning mostly derived from the parameter name itself.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('full details of a background task'), and scopes it by 'taskId' and output content ('stdout/stderr output'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (bg_task_list, bg_task_cancel, bg_task_cleanup) by focusing on retrieving details for a single task.

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 clear usage context: you use this tool when you have a taskId and need full details including output. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but 'by taskId' strongly signals this is for individual task lookup rather than listing or cancellation, providing clear context without exclusions.

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