get_remediation_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable non-obvious behavior: it queries two backing tables with a defined fallback order and returns a source_table marker, which the agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the routing rules, then the return marker. Dense but every sentence carries information; the table names are a bit technical but necessary for correct invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the key return signal (source_table) plus the dual-table lookup, which is enough for an agent to call it and interpret the result. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what the returned detail fields look like.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the resolution semantics: a VUL-prefixed number routes to sn_vul_vulnerability while other values are tried as task_number then number. This adds real meaning about what the single parameter does.

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 (get full details of a single Remediation Task) and immediately scopes by identifier type. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_remediation_tasks and get_vulnerable_item.

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?

Explains the lookup resolution order an agent must know to pick the right identifier form, which is effectively guidance on how to use it. It stops short of naming when to prefer sibling tools such as list_remediation_tasks to discover an ID first.

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