get_task_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying that the details include dependencies and notes, giving some sense of the return content. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'get'), any auth requirements, rate limits, or what other fields might be present. This is a minimal but not fully transparent disclosure.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('task'). It communicates the key additional details ('dependencies and notes') without any waste, making it optimally sized.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description carries responsibility for explaining return values. It mentions dependencies and notes but leaves 'detailed information' vague, not clarifying what other fields are included or any limitations. This is adequate for a basic get operation but not fully complete given the absence of an output schema.

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 single parameter 'task_id' is described as 'Task ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a task including dependencies and notes'. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is 'task', and the scope is 'detailed information' with explicit mention of dependencies and notes. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_task_notes' (which focuses only on notes) and 'get_plan_task_details' (which targets plan tasks).

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 you need detailed task information with dependencies and notes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_notes or get_plan_task_details. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, so the usage context is only implied.

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