oc_task_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds valuable behavioral detail about default return (meta only) and the effect of include_result, which goes beyond 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch a single task by task_id') and adds the optional behavior in the second sentence.

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 description does not explain the return value structure (e.g., what 'meta only' includes). Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap for a tool with many sibling tools. However, the essential behavior is covered, and annotations provide safety context.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds extra meaning: task_id is from oc_task_start, and include_result returns persisted result.json. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 fetches a single task by task_id, and specifies the default behavior (meta only) with an optional flag to get the full result. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oc_task_list which lists tasks.

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 clear guidance on when to use include_result (to get the persisted result payload). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like oc_task_run_get or oc_task_start, though the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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