get_task_info

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, 'verbatim from config' tells the agent values are raw/non-normalized, and 'data completeness' warns that returned fields may be partial. It omits error behavior for an unknown or malformed task_id, which is the main remaining gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler: the payload enumeration comes first and the id-format guidance second. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the description still adds the notable caveat that completeness is reported. What's missing is failure behavior for bad task ids and whether config is static or live — modest gaps for a single-parameter read tool.

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 the single task_id param has no schema description, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, spelling out three accepted id forms ('ND-SEED-<seed>', frozen research ids like 'T1_CM2B', and 'MOCK-*' fixtures). It does not say how invalid ids fail or whether these forms are exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read one task's configuration') and then enumerates exactly what that configuration contains: workpieces, placement/allocation, robots, planner methods, collision-semantics flags, and data sources. The 'one task' framing implicitly separates it from list_tasks, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated payload — an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs the full config of a single task. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-something-else guidance (e.g. versus list_tasks or get_experiment_report), nor any stated preconditions.

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