get_task

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

readOnlyHint=true already reveals the read-only nature, and the description adds little beyond that. 'Tasks extension fallback' hints at an execution context but does not describe response behavior or edge cases such as missing ids.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse.

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 read-only lookup, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the read-only nature via annotations. A brief note about the return value or failure behavior would complete it, but nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 needed to fully explain the id parameter, but it only repeats that lookup is 'by id'. No id format, examples, or semantics are provided, so an agent must infer the expected value from the parameter name alone.

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 action and resource: retrieving a task by its id. This differentiates it from list_tasks, cancel_task, and wait_task, though the phrase 'Tasks extension fallback' adds context that is somewhat ambiguous without further explanation.

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 'fallback' wording implies this tool is used under a particular extension condition, but it never explicitly states when to choose get_task over alternatives like list_tasks or wait_task. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are provided.

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