read_task

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 states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't address other behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens with an invalid UUID), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a compact form, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, how errors are handled, or any dependencies. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return value and operational behavior to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'uuid' clearly documented as 'The task UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get full details') and resource ('task by UUID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_note' or 'read_workspace' beyond specifying the resource type, and 'full details' is somewhat vague about what information is returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tasks' or 'list_workspaces'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid UUID) or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between this and other read operations in the sibling set.

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