planka_read_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavior: there is no GET endpointcase and the tool returns a graceful {ok:false,error}. This is honest and prevents an agent from assuming a successful read will occur, though it doesn't fully detail the error payload or edge cases.

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 very short and front-loads the intended action, followed by an essential caveat. It contains no filler, though the juxtaposition of 'Read' with 'returns error' creates minor ambiguity that could be clearer.

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?

The description is not complete for agent use: it does not explain that the tool always fails, does not mention the output shape beyond the error flag, and lacks any pointer to an alternative tool that can actually read card/task data. More context is needed to prevent misuse.

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 zero description coverage, and the description only says 'by id' without explaining the id semantics, format, or whether the parameter is validated. The parameter is still a required string, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 operation ('Read a task by id') and clearly identifies the resource and verb. The caveat about the missing GET endpoint clarifies the tool's actual behavior as a graceful-failure stub, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling read tools like planka_read_card.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies the endpoint is unsupported but does not suggest using planka_read_card or another tool, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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