Find Task by Number

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which already signal a safe, read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that it 'returns the full record if found, or a clear message if not,' which goes beyond the hints. It does not conflict with annotations and enriches the agent's expectation of outcome.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples, then immediately followed by usage guidance. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant content. It is compact and easily parsed.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return behavior, examples, and usage context. It does not detail the exact record structure, but 'full record' is sufficient for most cases. The instance parameter is explained only in the schema, but that is acceptable given schema richness.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (table, number, instance), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces examples like 'INC0010001' that appear in the schema but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (find), resource (task record), and scope (by number), with concrete examples (INC0010001, CHG0030002). It distinguishes itself from generic lookup siblings like query_table and lookup_table by focusing on task records with a number, which aligns with task-related siblings like assign_task and resolve_incident.

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 explicitly advises using this tool 'to look up sys_ids, check current state, or retrieve task details before performing actions like assigning or resolving.' This provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., query_table for broader searches), so there are no exclusions.

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