task_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('baca'), which is helpful, but doesn't describe what information is returned, whether authentication is required, error conditions, or how it interacts with the active room context. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence in Indonesian that efficiently communicates the core functionality. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with clear semantics, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that presumably returns task details, more context about what constitutes an 'active room' and what task information is retrieved would be helpful. The description meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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 description doesn't mention parameters at all, but with only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the baseline would be lower. However, the parameter name 'task_id' is self-explanatory, and the description's context ('satu delegation task') implies a single task identifier is needed. This provides adequate semantic understanding despite the lack of explicit parameter documentation.

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 'Baca satu delegation task dari room aktif' clearly states the action (read/baca) and resource (delegation task) in Indonesian. It specifies the source ('dari room aktif') which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like task_list or task_accept, which would require a 5.

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 provides minimal guidance - it mentions 'dari room aktif' which implies it should be used when there's an active room context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this vs. task_list (for multiple tasks) or task_accept (for accepting tasks), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit alternatives are named.

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