سابقه، بازدید و امکانات پیشرفته‌ی وظیفه

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, so the description's added value is the behavioral note that 'Advanced-project parts are omitted when the project does not use them' — a conditional-omission disclosure the agent can't get from structured fields. The content list further describes what a read returns.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and closing with the conditional-omission caveat; dense but every clause carries content. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the content categories and the conditional omission rule. It omits only return formatting/pagination details, which are minor here.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents task_id and its provenance. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond it, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Extra information about a task') and enumerates the concrete content types returned (creator/views, Gantt placement, dependencies, automation buttons, workflow step, custom field history). This lets an agent distinguish it from mizito_get_task and other task siblings, though the 'extras' framing leaves the boundary slightly 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?

The description never states when to call this tool versus mizito_get_task or other siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. It names mizito_run_task_automation only as a downstream action for automation buttons, not as a selection alternative.

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