Get task

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds useful payload context (decoded time entries, aggregated total, running-state flag) since no output schema exists, but it never explains what "decoded" means or what happens when the task/includes are missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed immediately after the action. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool.

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 no output schema, the description does a fair job sketching the return payload, and readOnlyHint covers safety. However, for a getter whose main failure mode is a bad id or malformed `include`, the omission of both is a real gap.

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 only 50%: `id` has no description at all, and `include` only carries an example. The description compensates for neither — it doesn't state the id format (numeric vs. UUID-like) nor explain how `include` alters the response shape.

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 ("Fetch") and resource ("a single task") and enumerates what is returned: decoded time entries, total tracked time, and running state. The word "single" implicitly separates it from in_list_tasks, though the sibling is never named.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer in_list_tasks instead, and no stated prerequisite such as needing a valid task id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and resource.

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