Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the 'Read-only' statement adds little. However, the description adds value by disclosing that the response includes 'full comments and assignees' and emphasizes the constraint to never guess the id, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose first and additional guidance second. Every sentence contributes information without any redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, how to get the id, and how to pair with other tools. It lacks explicit error handling behavior, but that is not critical for this straightforward operation.

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% and the schema description for 'id' already states 'Task id, from list_tasks.' The description repeats this advice ('Resolve the id first with list_tasks'), reinforcing it but not adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Get one task by id and return it with its full comments and assignees.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of comments and assignees differentiates it from list_tasks and other task-related tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Resolve the id first with list_tasks — never guess it; pair with update_task or comment_on_task to act on what you read.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (after listing) and names complementary tools for follow-up actions, making alternatives clear.

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