get_scheduled_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' signals a read-only lookup, and the host/site format clarifications add useful context, but there is no mention of error behavior, required permissions, or what happens if the task ID is not found. It is not misleading, but it is not fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by three terse parameter clarifications. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema information.

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?

The parameter formats are sufficient to attempt a call, and the return value of 'a single scheduled task' is strongly implied by the name and first sentence. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of not-found or error behavior, the agent has little context about the outcome of the call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare string types. It does: host is described as console name, ID, or composite 'MAC:numericId' format, site as name or ID, and task_id as scheduled task ID. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though task_id gets only a minimal restatement.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('scheduled task'), and the selection criterion ('by ID'). The word 'single' clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_scheduled_tasks, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 phrase 'single ... by ID' implies this tool is for retrieving one known scheduled task rather than listing tasks, but it never explicitly names list_scheduled_tasks or states when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied rather than clearly contrasted with alternatives.

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