Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default minimal response, the need for opt_fields, and the list of rich data types returned (custom fields, memberships, HTML notes, etc.). This helps the agent know what to expect and what parameters to set.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical usage warning and a summary of available rich data. No wasted words.

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 read-only single-task retrieval tool with strong annotations and a fully described parameter schema, the description is complete. It covers default behavior, parameter requirements, and return content expectations. An output schema is absent, but the description enumerates the major return fields, making it sufficient for an agent.

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%, and both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add new parameter semantics beyond saying 'always use opt_fields' and mentioning that task_id comes from other tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Get full details for a single task by GID.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_tasks (search) or get_tasks_for_project (list) by emphasizing 'single task' and 'by GID.'

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?

It provides clear guidance: default response is minimal, so always use opt_fields. It also tells the user where to obtain the task_id (from asana_search_tasks or asana_get_tasks_for_project), implying those are discovery tools and this is for retrieving full detail once the GID is known. Not explicit about when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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