get_task

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true), and the description's 'Get details' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether all task subtypes are included or behavior when nothing is found. It does not contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and appropriately structured for a simple getter tool.

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 read operation with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description fully covers the core use case. It lacks an output schema but 'details' reasonably implies returning the record's fields. The absence of more explicit return-value explanation is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Task number or sys_id'. The tool description repeats this same information ('by number or sys_id') without adding new semantics like format, validation rules, or edge cases. The schema alone is sufficient, so the description adds no extra value.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'task record' with the identifying field 'number or sys_id'. It clearly states the tool's scope as 'any task record', distinguishing it from siblings like get_incident or get_change_request that target specific task subtypes. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 broad applicability ('any task record') but does not explicitly state when to choose this over more specific getters like get_incident or get_problem. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the decision to the agent without concrete guidance.

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