fusion_task_detail

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint) by explaining how `outcomes` is derived from the task's `actionList` with System entries filtered out, and by explicitly warning that an EMPTY outcomes list is a real common state, not an error, with a concrete observed pod example. This is exactly the interpretive context that structured annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first line and each paragraph earns its place: operational guidance, edge-case semantics, and argument sourcing. The observed-pod anecdote is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but it reinforces a non-obvious behavior, so the length is justified.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile, the description fully covers everything else an agent needs: what the tool returns, the non-obvious meaning of empty outcomes, why it can be empty (assigned group not acquired), and where to obtain the single argument. No critical gap remains for a single-parameter read tool.

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% — the schema only names the parameter "Number" with type string — so the description carries the full burden. It compensates by specifying the provenance: "The task number from `fusion_list_tasks`," which is the key semantic an agent needs to populate the argument correctly. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't hint at string format or any transformation needed.

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?

"One task in full, including the outcomes this user may actually submit" clearly identifies the resource (a single task) and the distinctive content (actionable outcomes), which separates it from fusion_list_tasks (list view) and fusion_act_on_task (taking action). However, no explicit verb like "read" or "get" is present — the intent is stated as a noun phrase, so it stops just 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?

The description gives clear operational context: read `outcomes` before offering the user a choice, and the `number` argument comes from `fusion_list_tasks`. It implicitly establishes when to call this tool (when full task detail and the user's actual decision options are needed), but it does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative siblings to consider instead.

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