task_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only, no side effects'—which adds no new value. However, it does add behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns the full description, expected outcome, and complete history of status changes and comments, and it discloses the short-prefix resolution behavior. This is meaningful and earns a 4.

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 compact, with two clear sentences and an Args listing. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. The Args section repeats the schema but is minimal and unobtrusive. No wasted words.

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 tool is a simple single-parameter get operation and an output schema exists (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description fully covers usage, purpose, and parameter resolution. It doesn't describe the return format, but that's covered by the output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit exclusion clause, but overall it's complete for this tool's complexity.

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%: the schema's task_id description exactly matches the Args text in the description. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description adds nothing new.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch full details of a task by ID') and resource, and further clarifies it includes a chronological comment log. It clearly distinguishes from task_list by stating that task_get is used when an ID is already available. This is unambiguous and differentiates it from the many sibling task 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Use when task_list() gave you an ID and you need the description...' This provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implicit contrast with task_list and the read-only nature effectively guide selection. No alternatives are named directly, but the context is strong enough for a 4.

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