teamstorm_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the human-readable key format and sibling routing, but no further behavioral details like error handling or pagination; this is adequate given the strong annotations, though 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and key format are front-loaded, and the important alternative routing is placed in the second 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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, fully covers how to call the tool, what the key looks like, and which sibling to choose when requirements are needed.

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 input schema provides only a bare string type for task_key with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining that it is a human-readable key and providing the TS-123 example, giving the agent the exact semantics needed to populate the parameter.

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 and resource: 'Retrieve a TeamStorm task' by its key. It also differentiates from the sibling teamstorm_get_task_context by naming it directly and giving a concrete example key format (TS-123).

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use teamstorm_get_task_context instead when requirements before implementation are needed. This is a clear when/when-not decision rule that helps avoid selecting the wrong sibling tool.

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