get_dev_task_by_slug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the result is the same as 'get_dev_task', implying it is a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with the primary function. It uses efficient language, though the bilingual mix (English and Chinese) may slightly reduce clarity for some users.

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 simple tool (1 required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and relationship to sibling 'get_dev_task'. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case documentation, but is overall sufficient.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by providing an example format ('task-42') and context explaining that slug is a human-readable short identifier. This compensates for the lack of schema description.

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 'Fetch a single dev-task by its slug', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_dev_task' by specifying the use of slug instead of ID, and explains the slug's advantage over ObjectID.

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 explains that slug is a human-readable short identifier better for oral references, kanban UI, and MCP conversations, guiding when to use this tool over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools by name.

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