get-planner-task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting the @odata.etag in the response and its necessity for updates, which is not covered by annotations. It also clarifies that the tool retrieves both properties and relationships, going beyond the minimal 'read' hint.

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 compact—one concise sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bulleted tip that is directly relevant. No fluff or redundancy; the essential information is front-loaded.

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 straightforward get-single-object tool with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers the core function, mentions the etag for subsequent update operations, and the schema handles all parameters. There is no output schema, so no return structure needs explanation.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond echoing the includeHeaders tip and the etag relevance. It adds some value by highlighting the includeHeaders parameter's purpose in the tip, but this is marginal given the schema already explains it.

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 states 'Retrieve the properties and relationships of plannerTask object.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list-planner-tasks or get-planner-task-details. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 tip is directly actionable: it advises saving the @odata.etag from the response for later use with update-planner-task, and suggests using includeHeaders=true to capture it. This gives clear context on how to use the tool effectively and connects it to the update workflow, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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