Get ONES Task Rich Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful context about the source of the resources (the rich-text body of a requirement/task/bug) but says nothing about output shape, ordering, or size limits. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed immediately by the disambiguating alternative. Every clause earns its place; there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the source and the routing alternative well. The gap is the undocumented team_id parameter, which an agent may need in multi-team contexts; otherwise the definition is complete enough to call the tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. 'By task id' only loosely clarifies task_id, and team_id is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description — an agent has no basis for deciding whether or how to supply it. This does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Extract rich-text image resources from a requirement, task, or bug body') with a scoping constraint ('by task id'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task_rich_resources_by_ref, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it ('Prefer get_task_rich_resources_by_ref when starting from a number or URL'), giving both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance. Nothing is left to inference.

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