teamstorm_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly avoids contradiction. It adds the human-readable key format, which clarifies the input nature but does not disclose extra behavioral aspects like error handling or response shape—though the output schema likely covers that. The description is consistent and adds slight 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose and the key format are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is included as a second sentence. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, how to specify the parameter, and when to choose an alternative. The agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly without any gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that task_key is a human-readable key (e.g., TS-123). This goes beyond the schema's bare 'string' type and gives the agent concrete guidance for constructing 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource 'TeamStorm task' and defines the identifier format as a human-readable key (e.g., TS-123). It also differentiates from the sibling teamstorm_get_task_context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use an alternative: 'Use teamstorm_get_task_context instead when you need requirements before implementation.' This provides a clear condition for when not to use this tool, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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