get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Read' establishes it as non-mutating, and it enumerates exactly what the working view returns, including current run progress and per-criterion delivery results. It also flags the 'full' view as immutable history. It stops short of noting payload size or cost of view='full', which matters for a history dump with no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return contents, then the view switch and the sibling-ordering note. The middle sentence is a long enumerated list, but each element is substantive rather than filler. Slightly dense, though nothing is truly wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly for both views. Remaining gap is failure behavior for an unknown taskId and any guidance on the size/latency of view='full'.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameters, and it does: it spells out the default 'working' view's contents versus view='full' returning complete event and review histories. taskId is only characterized as 'known', leaving error behavior for an invalid or stale id unstated.

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 verb (read) and resource (a known taskId's definition plus phase context), and the 'known taskId' phrasing immediately separates it from list_tasks and get_project_status. An agent can tell this is the per-task detail fetch without opening the schema.

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 'known taskId' framing plus 'This does not require get_project_status first' gives clear entry conditions and removes a dependency-ordering ambiguity relative to a sibling. It also explains when to switch to view='full'. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., in favor of list_tasks when the id is unknown), so it falls short of a 5.

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