get_task

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing the scope of the returned detail (labels, subtasks, assignees, comments, dependencies), giving the agent a precise expectation of the data. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but none are suggested by the annotations; no contradiction.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core function, and every word adds value. It efficiently combines resource scope and usage timing without redundancy.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context. It tells what the tool does, what content is returned, and when to use it, making it complete for this simple reference tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single task_id parameter, including its source ('from list_actionable_tasks'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 provides 'Full detail for one task' and enumerates specific fields (description, labels, subtasks, assignees, comments, waiting on). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_actionable_tasks and claim_task by focusing on retrieving comprehensive detail for a single task.

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 explicitly instructs to use it 'after you claim a task, to understand what has to be done.' This gives a clear temporal usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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