task_contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the contract is "self-contained" and covers execution/verification, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-task handling, or what the contract contains.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action and resource appear immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 clear annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it should explain more about what the contract contains and how to select this tool over the many task_* siblings.

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%, and the single required "id" parameter has no schema description. The description implies the id identifies "one durable task," which adds minimal meaning, but it gives no format, example, or lookup semantics.

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 states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("self-contained execution/verification contract for one durable task"). It is clear enough to distinguish the general purpose from task_status or task_update, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the many other task_* siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling tool to use instead. The phrase "for one durable task" implies the required id but does not explain the use case versus task_status, task_verify, or task_events.

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