Get task

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is mainly the return-content hint: the markdown body and lane are included. It does not say what happens when no task matches, whether a prefix match can be ambiguous, or how the payload is shaped (there is no output schema).

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler, and the most informative clause ('including its markdown body and lane') is placed early. It is borderline under-specified rather than bloated, so it earns high but not top marks on structure.

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 full schema coverage and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials. However, with no output schema it should do more to characterize the returned task payload and the not-found behavior, which are the two things an agent would still wonder about.

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 'task' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the id/6+ character prefix/exact title forms. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 names the resource ('one task') and the fidelity of the result ('in full, including its markdown body and lane'), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings. The verb is carried only by the tool name/'Get task' title rather than the description, and it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_board or update_task.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what the alternative is (e.g., a list/search tool). An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-item retrieval path, and the useful detail that 'task' accepts an id, a 6+ char prefix, or an exact title lives entirely in the schema.

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