Get Zero Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, namely the 'user-accessible' scoping qualifier. It does not address not-found behavior or return format, but with strong annotation coverage a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the verb, resource, scope, and key parameter. There is zero filler, and the essential information is front-loaded. This is an example of efficient understated design.

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, single-parameter getter with annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only gaps are unstated behavior for missing/not-found tasks and any return value specifics, which are not covered by an output schema. Given the low complexity, this is adequately complete.

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 100%; the parameter task_id is documented as 'Known Zero task id.' The description merely restates that lookup is by id, adding no further semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('Zero task'), and a unique identifier ('by id'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list/creation tools like list_tasks and create_task by indicating it retrieves exactly one task. The qualifier 'user-accessible' adds precision about scope.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you have a known task id and need a single Zero task. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for list/search scenarios, but the 'one... by id' phrasing implies the right situation. Sibling names provide additional context, so this is slightly above baseline.

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