Get Project Task By Id

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and lists required parameters, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction found.

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 four sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, what it returns, required parameters, and API context. No fluff or redundant information.

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's simplicity (single GET with annotations), the description adequately covers what it does and returns. However, it does not explain the optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) which are present in the schema but not discussed. Also lacks information on error handling or authentication, but these are minor omissions.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by specifying required parameters and showing the endpoint path structure (e.g., how task_id, company_id, project_id are used as URL path parameters). This helps an agent understand the parameter relationships beyond schema syntax.

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 it fetches a project task by ID and returns full details. It specifies the resource as 'Estimating records.' However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_project_task_by_id_company_v2_0,' which serves the same purpose but likely a different API version.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Estimating records by its identifier,' which is minimal. It does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing tools (to get a single record after listing) or the v2.0 variant. No exclusions or context for when not to use.

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