planner_task_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the extra round-trip for include_details, which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss permissions or rate limits, which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently conveys key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 (2 parameters, output schema documented as same shape as planner_tasks), the description covers the return shape, the optional details behavior, and the read-only nature. No gaps are present for a get-by-id tool with annotations.

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 description explains both parameters: task_id is implied by 'by id', and include_details is explicitly described with the additional data it fetches (description, checklist, references, preview_type) and the extra round-trip. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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 'Fetch one Planner task by id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like planner_tasks which lists tasks, and todo_task_get for Todo tasks.

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 implies usage when you have a task ID, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like planner_tasks or tasks_search. It mentions include_details option but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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