yougile_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing what fields are returned, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, required permissions, or response structure beyond the field list. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not particularly rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and lists concrete examples of returned data. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and structured for quick scanning.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major return fields (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking), giving the agent a good sense of what it will receive. It stops short of describing the exact response format or handling of missing tasks, but for a simple getter with strong annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 already defines the single parameter 'id' as a 'Task UUID' with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add any further semantics about the id parameter, but none are needed since the schema is self-explanatory. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), and enumerates the details returned (title, description, assigned users, deadline, checklists, stickers, time tracking). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like yougile_list_tasks, which lists tasks rather than retrieving a single task's full details.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving comprehensive details for one task, distinct from listing tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over yougile_list_tasks or other task-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear from the verb and resource, but not fully explicit.

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