codesafe_task_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (metadata, code statistics) but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any relevant limitations. Since 'get' implies read-only but is not explicit, the transparency is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific examples of the output (file/line counts, template, times). Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema (present, though not shown). The description covers the key aspects of what is returned and is adequate for a straightforward fetch operation. However, it falls short of full completeness by not explicitly stating the read-only nature or providing usage context with siblings.

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 schema has one parameter (task_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explicitly mention or explain task_id. The phrase 'a task's' implies an identifier is needed, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation by explaining the parameter's role or format.

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 identifies the tool's action (get) and resource (a task's metadata and code statistics), with specifics like file/line counts, template, and times. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'codesafe_list_tasks' (lists tasks) and 'codesafe_bug_summary' (specific to bugs).

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 tool is for retrieving details of a single task, which suggests using it when you need a task's summary rather than a list or bug-specific info. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the guidance implicit.

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