hermes_task_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output context (status, result, input request, lifecycle events) but does not disclose behavioral details such as the refresh side effect, which is only mentioned in the schema. Credit is limited because the description adds only mild behavioral nuance beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and the returned data. Every word earns its place, with zero waste or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple: one required ID parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description states the purpose and what is returned, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without needing to infer missing information.

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% for both parameters (task_id and refresh), so the description is not required to compensate. It mentions 'bridge task' which loosely maps to task_id, but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one bridge task'), and enumerates the exact data returned ('Hermes status/result/input request, and recent lifecycle events'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like hermes_tasks_list (which lists tasks) and hermes_task_cancel (which cancels tasks).

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: fetch detail for a single task when you have its ID. However, the description does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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