Get a task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important behavior: it returns the task's state, payload, attempts, lease, and timestamps, and returns task:null if the task does not exist. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but for a simple fetch this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly states both the input and the return behavior.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies what is returned, names the key data fields, and explicitly handles the not-found case. This gives an agent enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and one required parameter, taskId. The description's 'by id' adds a little semantic meaning by linking the parameter to the task being fetched, but it does not provide format details, examples, or constraints beyond what the parameter name already implies. The schema is self-explanatory enough that this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch one task by id') and clearly names the resource and scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or claim_task. It also lists the returned data fields and the null return for missing tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for retrieving a single task when you have its id, implying the appropriate scenario. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tool names.

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