weeek_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't state whether the returned object includes all fields, whether it returns an error when the id doesn't exist, or any other behavioral properties (auth requirements, rate limits). It adds essentially no behavioral information beyond the schema.

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 short sentence that takes minimal space. However, this borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness — there's no additional detail, so it reads more like a tautological placeholder than an efficiently structured description. Still, no wasted words.

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 single-ID fetch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is notably thin. It doesn't explain what the task object contains, whether it includes custom fields, subtasks, or relationships, or how it differs from list operations. While a get-by-id tool is conceptually simple, the absence of any return-format or behavior detail leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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%, but the description's single parameter (task_id) is self-explanatory in both the name and the schema type. The description doesn't add anything about the semantics of task_id beyond what the schema shows — no mention of format constraints, valid range, or where to obtain a task_id (e.g., from weeek_list_tasks). With only one parameter that's self-evidently an ID, the description adds zero value here.

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 states 'Get one task by id' with a clear verb (Get) and resource (task), identifying this as a retrieval operation. It's minimally distinguishable from sibling weeek_list_tasks and weeek_get_attachment, but the singular 'one' and 'by id' does set it apart as a single-item fetch. Purpose is clear but thin, not explaining what fields or scope are returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like weeek_list_tasks (list all) or weeek_get_attachment (get attachment file). There's no mention of when a task wasn't provided in list results, or that this is the way to fetch full details for a single task. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling set rather than from the description.

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