get_task_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It appropriately implies a read-only operation and adds value by explaining the output contents (reasoning, actions). However, it does not disclose any potential limitations, such as whether the output is truncated by default, whether it reflects only completed tasks, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second gives a practical usage scenario. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects). The description explains what the output contains (reasoning and actions) and when to use the tool, which is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly. It does not enumerate return types, but that is not essential given the description's clarity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (task_id and tail_lines), including the default behavior for tail_lines. The description adds no additional parameter-specific context beyond reinforcing that the output is 'full,' which aligns with the schema's 'Default: all output.' Since the schema handles parameter semantics fully, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve the full output from a Claude Code agent task' which clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and resource (task output). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_tasks (status) and dispatch_task (create) by focusing on output retrieval. The phrase 'including its reasoning and actions taken' further clarifies the scope of the output.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to see what the agent did.' This tells the agent when to employ this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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