context_for_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explicitly warns 'Read-only', discloses the ordering behavior, states that invalid lifecycle items are excluded, and promises provenance on every item. It still omits potential error conditions or result format, so minor gaps remain.

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 short and highly structured: it opens with read-only, states the resource and action, then lists ordered behaviors. Every sentence carries unique information and there is no redundant or filler phrasing.

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 description captures the core behavior and result items are explained well enough at a high level, but there is no return format, no mention of how the optional limit applies, and no note of error or edge cases. Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to guess important operational details.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain projectId, taskId, or limit further. Although the parameter names are self-evident, the description mentions nothing about how limit interacts with the retrieval or candidate generation, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clear action, 'Builds execution context for a task,' with concrete processing details: typed relationships first, retrieval candidates, invalid lifecycle exclusion, and provenance. It is sufficiently distinct from simple getters like get_task or graph tools like task_graph, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 when to use it — whenever execution context for a task is needed before acting — and the read-only tag suggests safe use. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for simpler cases like a single task read, so the guidance remains mostly inferred.

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