get_system_task_by_id

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the lower bar applies. The description adds the HTTP GET method, which is consistent with those annotations, but it does not disclose non-relevant behaviors such as 404 handling for a missing id or what a system task represents. It adds modest value beyond the 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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose line 'Read Task.' Each remaining line is short, though the 'Args: id: Path parameter' line partially duplicates the schema and the endpoint line adds only marginal value. For a 1-parameter tool this is appropriately distilled, if slightly skeletal.

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 (1 required integer parameter, annotations and an output schema present), so the minimal description reaches viability. Still, a single sentence saying it returns the task with a given id and that ids come from the system-task list endpoint would meaningfully close the gap; the current text leaves the semantics of 'system task' implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by labeling 'id' as a path parameter, which is not inferable from the schema's type/title alone. However, it never explains the id's provenance or meaning (e.g., a task id returned by list_system_task), so compensation is only partial.

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 verb+resource: 'Read Task' with the endpoint 'GET /api/v3/system/task/{id}'. The path containing '{id}' distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_system_task' (which would target the collection), but it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'list_system_task' exists for enumerating tasks, does not say where the id comes from, and provides no context about preconditions. Agents are left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and URL.

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