task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch a single task by id, including comments' – implying read-only behavior but never explicitly stating it. The massive variable list without explanation obscures pagination and nested-connection behavior rather than illuminating it.

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 starts with a clear purpose but immediately devolves into a long run-on list of 50 variable names that duplicates the schema. This list is unstructured and not front-loaded; the useful example is buried at the end. The description would be far more concise and effective by omitting the variable list entirely.

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 tool has 50 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the interplay of nested connections (activity logs, access groups, pods, roles) and how the many filter/order/cursor parameters relate. It only mentions comments, leaving most of the tool's behavior unexplained and failing to provide a complete operative picture.

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 descriptions are merely GraphQL type names (e.g., 'GraphQL: String'), so they convey little semantic meaning. The description attempts to compensate with an example object showing shapes for 'filter', 'order', etc., which adds some value. However, the example is truncated and the raw variable-name dump is redundant, so the added meaning is limited.

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 ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single task'), and the scope ('by id, including comments'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tasks' (list) and 'create_task' (create). The core purpose is 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?

The description implicitly conveys the primary use case: retrieve one specific task by ID, optionally including its comments. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the singular 'by id' framing provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus a list/filter tool.

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