fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the full contents are returned. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds a small amount of context but doesn't disclose any potential pitfalls or specific behaviors beyond the ID format.

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, extremely concise, and free of fluff. Every word contributes to clarity. It front-loads the action and then specifies the ID format requirement.

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-only fetch by ID, the description is sufficient. Output schema exists, so return details are not needed. It covers the essential ID format and clarifies the scope (task or project). Rich annotations fill the remaining behavioral context.

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% for the single id parameter, including the required format. The description repeats that format, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 fetches full task or project contents by ID. It uses a specific verb (Fetch) and resource type (task/project), and the ID format is explicitly specified, distinguishing it from generic tools like fetch-object.

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 for tasks and projects, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fetch-object or provide guidance on when to use this tool over others. It lacks explicit exclusions or 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.