tokportal_get_comment_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, setting a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful context about ownership scope ('owned comment task') and business logic (blocking due to inactive TokPortal Coverage, stable block reason), which enriches agent understanding beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('Get a comment task') and efficiently states the return content. Every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the function and key return fields. It could mention error handling (e.g., behavior when ID is invalid or task not owned), but this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the `id` parameter ('Comment task ID.'). The tool description does not add any further parameter-level details (e.g., how to obtain the ID, constraints, or format nuances). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a comment task' and specifies that it returns a single owned comment task with specific properties: inactive TokPortal Coverage blocking status and stable block reason. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like tokportal_list_comment_tasks (list) and tokportal_get_comment_pulse (different data). The verb+resource pattern is precise and 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?

The description implies the usage scenario (fetching a single comment task to check blocking state) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tokportal_list_comment_tasks, tokportal_approve_comment_task, or tokportal_dispute_comment_task. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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