aiworkhub_dashboard_task_detail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safety, but the description adds useful context: it validates task_id format before querying and never mutates state. It does not cover error behavior, but the annotations plus output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY guarantee. Every sentence contributes either purpose, routing guidance, or safety/validation context.

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 the single documented parameter, readOnly annotation, and existing output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the returned content at a high level and routes users to alternatives when appropriate.

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% and the task_id parameter is already documented as a canonical identifier matching the repository pattern. The description adds that the format is validated before querying, but does not provide additional format details beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: return canonical detail, events, and validation evidence for one task card. It also names the sibling tools for queue-wide status and live output, making the scope of this tool easy to distinguish.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (inspecting one task's contract, history, attempt receipts) and when to use alternatives (snapshot for queue-wide counts, task_live_output for stdout/stderr). This gives clear routing guidance between related tools.

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