get_task_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as read-only via '[Category: Tasks — Read]' and lists the data returned, but it does not mention side effects, error handling (e.g., what if the task does not exist), authentication specifics, or rate limits. The description is minimally transparent but lacks depth beyond the basic read nature.

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 highly concise: one sentence for the primary purpose, a single line for category/auth/related tools, and a compact args list. Every sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, and the additional lines are well-organized.

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 that there is no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the data returned (checklist, reminders, recurrence, etc.), setting clear expectations. However, it omits details on potential errors (e.g., task not found, permissions) and does not specify whether the response includes all possible fields or only those present. For a simple read operation, it is mostly complete, but a small gap remains.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section provides brief semantic meaning for both parameters: 'The project containing the task' and 'The task ID.' This adds value beyond the schema's bare field names and types, clarifying the role of project_id as a container context. A more detailed format or constraint specification would push it higher, but for two simple string parameters, it's adequate.

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's purpose: 'Return full detail of a specific task' and enumerates the types of information returned (checklist, reminders, recurrence, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by listing related tools (get_project_tasks, update_task, complete_task) and by explicitly categorizing it as a 'Read' operation, making its role clear among the many sibling tools.

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 provides context via '[Category: Tasks — Read]' and 'Auth: V1', and mentions related tools, which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit statements such as 'Use this when you need full task details; use get_project_tasks for a summary list' or any conditions when not to use it.

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