weeek_get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the response includes assignees, but it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if id is missing), read-only nature explicitly, or any potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive, so a 3 is warranted.

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 of ten words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get' and the resource. It conveys the necessary information without any filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 operation with no output schema, the description covers the core function and adds the detail about assignees. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly address not-found behavior or explicitly state that it returns a single task object. Given the simplicity, a 4 is warranted.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description needed to compensate. The phrase 'by id' merely restates the purpose of the 'id' parameter already evident from the name and schema, adding no additional meaning such as format, constraints, or how to obtain the id. This is minimal compensation for a single parameter, thus a 2.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'one WEEEK task' with a clear scope 'by id'. It also highlights that the response includes assignees, distinguishing it from task listing or update tools. The name and description align perfectly to convey the operation.

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 clearly implies usage when a specific task ID is known and a single task is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_tasks or when not to use this tool. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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