get_task

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that return includes 'Task details including notes', which is useful output context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the task does not exist, or whether special permissions are required. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but that is implicit.

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 extremely concise, using a short intro plus an Args section and a Returns section. There is no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details. Every line contributes meaningful information, making it easy to parse.

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 getter with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return highlight (notes). It lacks guidance on edge cases, error behavior, and alternative tools, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A higher score would require more explicit usage context or failure-mode disclosure.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that says 'task_id: The ID of the task to retrieve', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type. Even though the context signal reports 0% schema coverage, the description itself actually documents the parameter, and it does so clearly and concisely.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific task', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and get_task_notes (which only fetches notes) by focusing on a single task's full details.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or get_task_notes. The word 'specific' implies a contrast with list_tasks, but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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