alga_projects_tasks_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds only that this is the detail-retrieval step; it says nothing about behavior on a nonexistent or malformed task_id, nor how complete the returned detail is. Adequate but thin for a read tool with annotations carrying the load.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage hint. No filler; every clause contributes.

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?

A simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. Still, "full details" is vague and nothing covers error behavior or the source of task_id, leaving small but real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only maps the single parameter implicitly via "by ID". The schema's pattern and length constraints hint at ID format, but neither description nor schema explains where such an ID comes from or whether IDs from other tools are valid.

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 project task by ID"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings the description explicitly names. It is clear what the tool returns at a high level, though it does not describe the shape of a 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?

"Use after a list or search to see full details" gives a concrete triggering condition tied to sibling tools. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., batch retrieval or other ID-based getters), but the intended workflow is clear.

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