get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It doesn't mention any behavioral aspects: whether the task is read-only (though implied), what happens with custom_task_ids, whether subtasks require auth/team context, or what a 404 returns. For a read tool with no annotations, it should state the read-only nature explicitly.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, front-loaded with the purpose. Brief and to the point. Could arguably lose nothing, though it could add value with a sibling note without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'details' means--what fields/objects are returned. The include_subtasks parameter is entirely undocumented. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is under-specified.

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 75% (3 of 4 params have descriptions). The parameter schema adequately describes task_id, team_id, and custom_task_ids. The include_subtasks param has no description, so 25% is a gap. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific task' uses a clear verb+resource format. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools like get_tasks (plural) or get_task_watchers/get_task_members/get_task_comments which are more specific. The 'details' term is vague about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't differentiate from get_tasks (which lists tasks), doesn't mention when custom_task_ids applies, and provides no context about when include_subtasks should be used. The sibling tool get_tasks exists but no exclusion is stated.

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