get_task_by_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the session default behavior and verbosity levels, which are beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or behavior on missing ref, but the read-only nature and presence of an output schema mitigate the need. A score of 4 is appropriate for adequate but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and parameter notes. It is front-loaded with the main action and is free of extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, required parameters, optional parameters, and defaults. This is complete for a retrieval tool with a well-defined schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the ref parameter as 'human-readable reference number (#N)', verbosity as three options, and session_id default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 states it gets a task by its human-readable reference number (#N), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_task by stating 'Use this instead of get_task when you have a ref number.' This provides a specific verb and resource with sibling differentiation.

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 ('Use this instead of get_task when you have a ref number') and what is required ('Requires the project_id'). It also implies when not to use (if no ref number, use get_task). This is clear guidance.

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