aiworkhub_task_template_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description does add a real behavioral trait with 'fail closed' — it errors rather than fuzzy-matching or returning a nearest candidate — which is genuinely useful. But the phrase is terse jargon left unexplained (what error, what counts as a miss).

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero padding, but the brevity shades into under-specification: 'fail closed' and 'short or full' are compressed to the point of ambiguity. Efficient, not wasteful, but thin.

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 readOnlyHint covering side effects, the description need not explain returns. For a one-parameter lookup it is nearly adequate, but the missing ID format example and the unexplained relationship to template_list leave an agent to infer how to source a valid ID.

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 carries the full parameter burden. It partially compensates by stating the ID may be 'short or full' and must be 'exact', which is meaningfully more than the bare schema. It still never shows what a short vs. full ID looks like or where to obtain one.

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 names a specific verb (show) and the resource it operates on (one template, keyed by template ID), and 'one exact' implicitly contrasts with the bulk aiworkhub_task_template_list sibling. The 'MANAGER READ' prefix adds an audience/scope qualifier, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'MANAGER READ' signals the manager-scoped read context, and 'one exact ... template ID' implies you must already hold a precise ID (e.g., from template_list) before calling. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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