task_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lists return fields but does not disclose read-only behavior, authorization needs, error conditions, or rate limits. The 'Returns' section is helpful but lacks safety/operational context.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: summary, arg description, return fields, and example. Front-loaded and no filler. Well-organized into sections (Args, Returns, Examples).

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?

Given the single parameter, the description fully documents what is returned. The output schema exists (context signal), but the description still provides rich detail on fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough. Slightly incomplete for a fully standalone description, but more than adequate.

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?

The schema specifies task_id as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies it is 'The UUID of the task' and provides an example, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific task', with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('task'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_list (list all tasks) and task_cancel (cancel), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 context is implied (e.g., when you need details of a specific task), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_list or task_event_list. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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