Get ONES Task Messages By Ref

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that the 'ref' parameter can be a task number, id, or URL, which is useful context beyond the schema. No behavioral traits like pagination or limits mentioned, but annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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?

Single sentence, directly front-loaded with essential information. No redundant words; every word contributes to meaning.

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's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention potential nuances like message ordering or pagination, but these may be covered by the output 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 description coverage is 0% for the 'ref' parameter. The description clarifies that 'ref' accepts task number, id, or URL, adding meaning absent from the schema. Could be more detailed with format examples, but effectively compensates for missing schema documentation.

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?

Description specifies verb 'Get', resource 'task comments/messages', and acceptable identifiers (task number, task id, or task URL). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling 'get_task_messages' which may serve a similar role but with different parameters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_task_messages' or other related tools. No prerequisites or conditions stated.

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