get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only status or mention any prerequisites, permissions, or response characteristics. This is acceptable for a simple read but not fully transparent.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. The version prefix '[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7]' is unnecessary but does not detract. Every part earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter source. There is no output schema, so the phrase 'full details' is somewhat vague but acceptable for a task object. Given the low complexity and rich sibling context, the description is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single parameter, but the description adds value beyond the schema by indicating where the GUID comes from (list_tasks, create_task, Feishu URL). This contextual hint helps the agent understand how to populate the parameter effectively.

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 'Get full details of a single task by GUID' uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (single task), and specifies the lookup method (by GUID). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks (which lists multiple) and create_task/update_task (which mutate).

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 retrieving one task after obtaining a GUID. The parameter description adds context by listing sources for the GUID (list_tasks, create_task, Feishu URL). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear for a simple read lookup.

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