task_get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'without changing it' simply restates that annotation without adding new behavioral context. It does add the 'active room' scoping, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential error behavior, auth requirements, or any other side effects. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states purpose, the second and third provide usage context. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is a simple read with one parameter, has an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation. The description covers purpose, when to use, and alternatives. Given the low complexity and the presence of output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must carry the semantic burden. The description indirectly references the parameter through 'when an offer supplies a task ID' and 'when the task ID is not known', which conveys that task_id is the identifier of the task. However, it does not explicitly describe the task_id format or origin beyond these hints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Read'), the specific resource ('one delegation task manifest'), and the scope ('from the active room'). It distinguishes task_get from task_list by emphasizing a single manifest vs. listing, and the parenthetical 'without changing it' reinforces the read-only nature.

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 states when to use this tool ('after task_list or when an offer supplies a task ID', 'especially before choosing accept, reject, or defer') and when not to ('Use task_list instead when the task ID is not known'). It names the alternative tool, providing clear usage boundaries.

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