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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the project/personal scope distinction but does not mention error behavior such as a missing or inaccessible task ID.

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 with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key parameter-selection rule.

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 has an output schema, full schema description coverage, and rich annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. It covers the essential calling context, though it could more explicitly route agents away from list/search siblings when a specific task ID is known.

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 100%, so both taskId and projectId are already documented. The description's note about providing projectId for project tasks or omitting it for personal tasks largely restates what the schema says, so it does not add much beyond the structured fields.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single task by ID.' The word 'single' helps distinguish it from sibling list-style tools like xtiles_list_tasks, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

Provides context for the optional projectId parameter (project tasks vs personal tasks), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool rather than xtiles_list_tasks or another retrieval sibling. Usage is implied by 'by ID' rather than stated as selection guidance.

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