get_task_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and 'detailed info' indicates the nature of the response. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, or what happens for invalid/nonexistent task IDs. The output schema covers return structure, so the main gap is side-effect clarity.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a clean Args structure. Every element earns its place—there is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema-only details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and parameter source, and the output schema handles return values. It could add explicit alternative routing, but that is not critical for a straightforward read operation.

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%, but the description's Args block adds meaning by explaining that task_id is a Task ID and specifically referencing list_tasks as the source. This gives the agent provenance and context beyond the raw schema, which only provides a type and title. The single parameter is effectively documented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed info for a specific task.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_tasks and other sibling operations by focusing on retrieving details for a single task. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does and how it differs from the other task-related 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 a clear usage context by specifying that task_id should come from list_tasks, establishing a prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent knows to use this when it needs details on an already-listed task.

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