Get task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context by clarifying it returns a single task ('Get one') and supports both task ID and Custom Task ID. It does not disclose other behaviors like authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and does not waste words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 retrieval tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core use case adequately. However, it omits context around optional parameters like workspace_id and include_subtasks, and does not mention any response shape, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool for edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that task_id can be either a standard task ID or a Custom Task ID, giving meaning to the primary parameter and the custom_task_ids flag. However, it does not explain workspace_id or include_subtasks, leaving these parameters semantically unexplained.

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 'Get' with a clear resource 'ClickUp task' and specifies the identification method 'by task ID or Custom Task ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools and mutation tools, making the purpose 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 description implies usage when a task ID is already known ('by task ID or Custom Task ID'), which suggests it is for direct retrieval rather than search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tasks_by_task_type or search_tasks_by_tag, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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