Habitica: get a task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that checklist items come back with ids (useful for follow-up habitica_manage_checklist calls) but says nothing about behavior when the task is not found, openWorld/lookup semantics, or whether tags are names or ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing exactly what details are returned, with zero filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the field enumeration plus annotations cover the essentials for a one-parameter read. The only missing piece is a failure/lookup behavior note (e.g., ambiguous partial text), which the schema partially handles.

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 already documents the id/alias/partial-text matching rule in detail, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies; the description does not compensate further nor detract.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves full details of a single task, and the enumerated fields (notes, checklist items with ids, schedule, tags, dates) make clear it returns the complete object rather than a summary. This distinguishes it from habitica_list_tasks, which enumerates many tasks.

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 word 'one task' implies single-record lookup and the sibling names (list_tasks, update_task) make the split reasonably inferrable, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus listing tasks or when it is unnecessary. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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