clio_get_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'detail', but it does not explicitly state that it retrieves a task without side effects, nor does it mention possible errors (e.g., if the task ID does not exist) or response format. The description is too terse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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 extremely brief (six words) and front-loaded with the key phrase 'Full detail'. It is concise, but it borders on under-specification. Every word earns its place, but the structure is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and it lacks context that could be provided without being verbose. A score of 3 reflects that it is concise yet minimal.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'full detail' means and how it differs from other list/retrieval tools. It does not mention that the task ID is required, nor does it describe the returned object. The description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and expected behavior.

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% because the schema has no descriptions for the single required parameter 'id'. The description does not compensate by explaining that the id identifies the task to retrieve. While the parameter name 'id' is self-explanatory, the description still adds no semantic value, and the rubric requires the description to compensate when schema coverage is low.

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 that the tool retrieves full detail for a single task, which distinguishes it from list/find tools like clio_find_tasks and from getters for other resources. The verb 'get' is implicit in the tool name and the description's 'Full detail' conveys retrieval. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly mention the resource type beyond 'task'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used when a task ID is known and complete details are needed, nor does it reference sibling tools like clio_find_tasks for listing or search scenarios. The context of sibling tools implies some usage, but the description itself carries no such information.

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