Get task

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes the full prompt text plus metadata (helpful since there is no output schema), but says nothing about error behavior for an unknown task_id.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and the returned content front-loaded; every word earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing piece: what the call returns (prompt + metadata). Only minor gaps remain around failure modes for an invalid id.

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 100% with a single required parameter already documented as coming from list_tasks, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get ... one task') and clarifies the payload ('full prompt and metadata'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_tasks by scope (single task). It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one task' suggests it is the follow-up to a listing call, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. The routing hint lives in the parameter schema ('Task id from list_tasks') rather than the description.

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