get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It signals a non-mutating read via 'Get' and clarifies the identifier requirement, but it does not mention permissions, idempotency, behavior when both taskId and taskNumber are provided, or error handling for missing identifiers. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 a single focused sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact list of returned fields and the identifier constraint. There is no filler, redundancy, or excessive detail.

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 read-only single-task retrieval with zero required parameters, the description covers core invocation (taskId or taskNumber) and enumerates expected return values, while the schema documents all parameter semantics including session-based defaults for teamId/projectId. It does not address edge cases like neither or both identifiers provided, but overall the information needed to call it correctly is present.

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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the OR relationship between taskId and taskNumber, which is already documented in the schema's taskId description. The field list in the description does not clarify parameter formatting or constraints beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task') and enumerates the exact fields returned: description, metadata, screenshot, page URL, CSS selector, browser info, console/network errors, comments, AI status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search/batch tools that return lighter or multi-task views. The name itself is unambiguous.

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 implies usage when full details of a single task are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_tasks, search_tasks, or batch_get_tasks. It provides an invocation constraint (taskId OR taskNumber) but no exclusions or alternative routing. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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