Show Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and states the endpoint, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or authorization requirements beyond the endpoint reference. The description adds moderate value beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, specifying usage, and providing context (endpoint, required params). It is front-loaded and efficient with no unnecessary words.

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 show-by-id tool with good schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, required parameters, and return format. It lacks mention of the optional pagination parameters (page/per_page) but the schema covers them. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description only repeats that 'id' and 'project_id' are required, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for the parameters.

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 the verb 'Show detail on the specified Task' and specifies the resource as 'Schedule (Legacy) records'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific domain (Schedule Legacy) and the API endpoint. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 Schedule (Legacy) records' which implies when to use when you have an identifier. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list_tasks for multiple records). The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions.

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