Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral detail: returns full comments and assignees, reinforces read-only nature, and emphasizes id provenance. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives actionable guidance. Front-loaded with clear verb and object.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this description covers purpose, return content, id sourcing, and composition with sibling tools. No output schema needed. Completely adequate for effective selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description 'Task id, from list_tasks.' Description adds crucial context by explicitly stating 'Resolve the id first with list_tasks — never guess it,' clarifying the parameter's source and usage.

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?

Clearly states 'Get one task by id' with specific resource and scope. Specifies return includes 'full comments and assignees'. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task and comment_on_task by contrasting read vs. write roles.

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?

Explicitly says to resolve id with list_tasks first and never guess it. Also instructs to pair with update_task or comment_on_task for subsequent actions, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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