Get a task

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is the safe verification path after ambiguous writes and writes are never retried automatically.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the core action and returned data, and the second adds a high-value usage caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description is complete: it lists the returned fields, conveys the safe read-only nature, and explains a key use case. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field list.

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 the schema already documents task_id and tasklist_id thoroughly. The description only refers generally to 'by id' and does not add meaning beyond the parameter definitions, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches'), a specific resource ('one task by id'), and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes get_task from list_tasks (which fetches many tasks) and get_tasklist (which fetches a task list).

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 gives a concrete when-to-use case: verifying state after an ambiguous write failure. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_tasks, but the 'one task by id' scope makes the selection context clear enough.

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