get_system_task_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description's 'Read Task' merely restates that safety profile rather than adding context such as 404 handling, response contents, or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists, but no additional behavioral disclosure is provided.

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?

At only a few words plus an endpoint and an args line, the description is efficiently front-loaded and contains no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but as a structure it earns a solid score.

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?

Given one simple parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is close to sufficient. The missing pieces are explicit usage guidance and a statement that it returns the task matching the given id, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 one required integer id with no description (0% coverage). The description labels it as a path parameter, which adds transport-level meaning beyond the raw schema, and the endpoint shows it is the task ID. It doesn't explain constraints or format further, but for a single simple id this is minimal yet sufficient compensation.

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 begins with 'Read Task,' which gives a clear verb and resource, and the endpoint /api/v1/system/task/{id} identifies a single-task read. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list_system_task or define what a system task is, so it's clear but not strongly differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it neither mentions list_system_task for listing tasks nor states any exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the name and endpoint, so an agent gets no routing guidance.

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