get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds only a list of returned fields, not additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, permissions, or side effects, which annotations do not require for a safe read operation.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; key scope ('one task in full') is front-loaded and the field list is compact and useful.

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 read tool with full schema parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it enumerates the return payload fields despite no output schema. An agent can select and call it correctly.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, including list's case-insensitive display name or id and task_id's provenance from list_tasks. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so baseline 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?

States a specific operation ('Get one task in full') and distinguishes from list_tasks by promising full task detail. Enumerates return contents, making the resource and scope 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?

Implied usage: retrieving a single task by ID, with no explicit when-to-use versus list_tasks or alternatives. There is no exclusion guidance or selection condition, though 'one task in full' offers some context.

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