task_get

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes a 'chronological comment log', which is beyond what annotations provide. No behavioral side effects are mentioned, but the annotations cover safety. The description does not contradict annotations.

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: two sentences cover the core purpose and the single parameter. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the tool's function and output. It notes the inclusion of a comment log. With an output schema present, it does not need to list every return field, but a note on error handling (e.g., if task not found) would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only restates the parameter name ('task_id') and its type ('UUID'). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, lacking format details or examples.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('task'), and the scope ('full details... including its chronological comment log'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_list (which lists tasks without full details) and task_update (which modifies).

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 needing a specific task's full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., task_list for summaries, task_comment for just comments). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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