task_log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the UPID format and the limit parameter, but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like response size or error handling. It provides some value 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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a two-item Args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only necessary details. No redundant sentences.

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 available, return values need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, the UPID identification, and the limit parameter. It does not specify whether the log can be fetched for running tasks, but this is a minor gap given the presence of wait_for_task sibling. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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's Args section is critical. It explains the UPID format with an example and defines limit as 'Maximum log lines', which adds meaning beyond the schema's plain property names and types. Both parameters are sufficiently documented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and specifies the resource: status and full output log of one task identified by UPID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and wait_for_task (which waits for completion).

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 indicates this tool is for retrieving the log/status of a single task when a UPID is known. It implies usage for individual task inspection but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The 'one task' phrasing provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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