fetch-object

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about includeChildren returning direct children with childCount and flags for children with children, and that it is ignored for comments/sections. This provides useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences convey the core action, the usage context, and a key optional parameter. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains what objects are supported, when to use the tool, and the includeChildren behavior. It lacks error handling or not-found behavior, but that's not essential given the completeness of schema and annotations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the effect of includeChildren but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Fetch a single task, project, comment, or section by its ID') and specifies the resource types. It distinguishes from sibling find tools by emphasizing retrieval by specific ID, not search criteria.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when you have a specific object ID and want to retrieve its full details.' It also contrasts with a find-tasks lookup in the includeChildren parameter description, providing an explicit alternative.

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