جزئیات یک وظیفه

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavioral detail: dates are returned in Jalali format, checklist entries carry item ids, and attachments carry file_ids usable by other tools. It omits error/not-found behavior, but the bar is lower with annotations present.

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 that opens with the core purpose and then enumerates contents; every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, listing every material field including formats (Jalali dates) and cross-tool id references. An agent can call this correctly and know what to expect back.

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?

Only one parameter, task_id, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already states it is the `_id`/`id` from mizito_list_tasks, mizito_calendar or mizito_get_project. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) plus resource (one task) and enumerates the exact payload: description, assignees, approvers, project/board, dates, repeat rule, checklist, labels, progress, files. That is far more specific than a tautology, though it never explicitly contrasts with the adjacent mizito_get_task_extras or mizito_get_task_comments, so sibling disambiguation is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' guidance. It does provide useful chaining context — checklist item ids feed mizito_check_task_item and file_id feeds mizito_read_file — which implies follow-up usage, but the agent must infer when this tool beats get_task_extras or list_tasks.

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