cor_get_task

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

No annotations provided. The description does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though the verb 'get' implies retrieval. The listing of return fields adds some transparency, but explicit behavioral disclosure is missing.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences covering purpose and return fields. Both languages included efficiently. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single ID parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains functionality and return content. It could be improved by noting the operation is read-only, but is otherwise 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% with clear parameter description ('ID de la tarea / Task ID'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, achieving baseline for full coverage.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details of a COR task by ID, listing included fields (status, priority, assignees, hours). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cor_list_tasks (lists tasks without full details) and cor_update_task (modification).

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 use when a task ID is available and full details are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cor_list_tasks for an overview or cor_get_project for project context.

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