Get a SpicyAPI task

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds substantial context they cannot: 404 semantics for unknown vs inaccessible IDs, asset URL expiry and keyless reuse, and the webhook-already-delivered case.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read action, then layered with URL usage, 404 semantics, and output-shape notes; every sentence carries information. The result is dense, with output-variant details (text, transcript, layer stacking) packed into a single long closing 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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description covers the non-obvious cases an agent needs: keyless asset URLs, pending/expired asset re-query, text-only and transcript outputs, and per-layer zIndex stacking order. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single taskId parameter is not described in the text. The phrase 'a task created by the current API key' and the 404 rule for unknown/inaccessible IDs imply the identifier's ownership and error behavior but not its format or source.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) plus resource (a task) and narrows scope to tasks 'created by the current API key'. The mention of ready output.assets[].url and the polling instruction implicitly separates it from listing (tasks_list) and waiting (task_wait) siblings.

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?

Gives clear situational guidance: use returned URLs directly without an API key, re-query when assets are pending or URLs expired, and skip retrieval when a verified v2 webhook already delivered the result. It stops short of naming sibling tools such as spicyapi_task_wait as the polling alternative.

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