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

Annotations only declare this is a safe, closed read. The description adds behavior an agent could not infer: ungranted workspace ids are rejected, and the returned updatedAt is a mandatory optimistic-lock token for later task_mutate calls. That is exactly the cross-tool constraint that prevents failed writes.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it returns first, then the workspace targeting rule, then the lock requirement. No filler and the most consequential constraint is not buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the enumeration of returned fields carries real weight, and the optimistic-lock dependency is stated. For a two-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and reuse its result is missing.

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 50%, with workspaceId documented in the schema and id undocumented. The description compensates by explaining when and why workspaceId is needed, though it partly restates the schema's own workspaceId text and never explicitly defines id as the task identifier.

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 ('Fetch one task in full') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from task_search (listing) and task_mutate (writing). An agent can tell what this tool is for and what it returns without opening a 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?

Gives a clear usage rule for workspaceId ('pass workspaceId from statelode://workspace to target a non-default workspace') and a hard prerequisite for calling task_mutate afterwards. It does not explicitly route discovery-style needs to task_search, so 4 rather than 5.

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