novacrm_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 burden. It does disclose that the response embeds a linked client and date fields, which is useful return-shape context beyond the schema, but it says nothing about permissions, errors when the ID is unknown, or whether the read is side-effect free.

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?

A single short sentence with the key operation front-loaded and zero padding. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it fetches and roughly what it returns (linked client, dates). Auth requirements and not-found behavior are the only notable omissions, and those are modest for a simple getter.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is documented in the schema as 'ID da tarefa'. The description restates that lookup is by ID but adds no format, source, or acquisition guidance (e.g., where to obtain the task ID), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Obtém uma tarefa pelo ID') and adds what comes back (linked client and dates). It is clearly a single-record fetch, distinguishable in spirit from novacrm_list_tasks, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'pelo ID' — an agent can infer this is the single-task retrieval tool that requires an identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against novacrm_list_tasks or novacrm_get_client for the linked-client data.

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