get_retex_for_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the relevance logic but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, how pagination or defaults work, or potential edge cases (e.g., no matching RETEX). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 a simple retrieval operation, and the schema covers parameters, but the description does not explain the output structure or behavior when no results are found. Given no output schema, the description could be more complete, though it is adequate for basic understanding.

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 100%, with all three parameters (task_id, limit, include_scores) described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving relevant RETEX cards for a given task. It specifies the method (tag overlap and moment relations) and the resource (RETEX cards), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_moments or make_retex by focusing on task-based relevance.

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 the tool is used when you need RETEX cards relevant to a specific task, based on tag overlap and moment relations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, exclusion criteria, or any conditions under which it should not be used.

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