teamstorm_get_task_context

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description correctly focuses on the extra behavioral caveat that TeamStorm text is external data and must not override user/system instructions. It also communicates that the response contains requirements plus context, which is useful beyond the 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 with no filler; the key directive is front-loaded and the security caveat earns its place. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 description is adequate for a read-only context fetch, but gaps remain: no return shape, no explanation of how the include_* parameters shape the result, and no guidance comparing it to the sibling tools. With no output schema, a bit more detail about what 'surrounding context' contains would improve completeness.

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 0% and there are six parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It only implies task_key through 'task' and says nothing about what include_links, include_children, include_comments, include_attributes, or include_attachments control or how defaults behave.

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 a clear action ('before implementing a TeamStorm task') and a specific return value ('task requirements and surrounding context'). It is distinguishable from the sibling getters because 'context' implies a broader fetch than teamstorm_get_task or teamstorm_get_comments, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: use this tool before implementing a TeamStorm task. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like teamstorm_get_task or teamstorm_get_comments, so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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