Get ONES Task Rich Resources By Ref

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds no extra behavioral context beyond purpose; no mention of rate limits, permissions, or response characteristics.

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 (10 words) precisely conveys purpose and parameters without any fluff; front-loaded key action and inputs.

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 1-param read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description suffices. Minor gap: no usage guidance relative to sibling, but overall adequate.

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 0%, but description clarifies that 'ref' accepts task number, task ID, or task URL, adding essential meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'string with minLength 1'.

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 clearly states it extracts rich-text image resources, specifying valid identifiers (task number, id, or URL). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_task_rich_resources' by emphasizing reference-based retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling 'get_task_rich_resources'; usage context is implied by the 'by_ref' naming, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion hints.

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