tokportal_get_comment_task

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return content (coverage blockage status and stable block reason), providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist, and the description enhances understanding of what the operation reveals.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding specific return details. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 simple retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope (owned comment task), and key output fields (coverage blockage and stable block reason). It lacks mention of error handling or what happens if the task is not found, but overall it is sufficiently complete given low complexity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'id' (described as 'Comment task ID.'). The description adds no further explanation of the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 is a 'Get a comment task' operation with specific details about what is returned: 'one owned comment task, including whether inactive TokPortal Coverage currently blocks manager execution and the stable block reason.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, create, delete, etc., which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tokportal_list_comment_tasks for multiple tasks, or tokportal_approve_comment_task for actions). It lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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