task_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare operation: no error/not-found behavior, no statement that the call is a side-effect-free read, and no indication of what is returned. 'Get' weakly implies read-only, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

Three words, front-loaded with the verb and no filler or repetition of the title. It is appropriately terse for a trivial lookup, though the terseness shades into under-specification.

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-parameter lookup with no nested schema this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the not-found/error behavior or the shape of the returned task. As written, the agent must call it blind.

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 compensate; it only tells us the lookup is 'by id', which matches the single obvious `id` parameter without adding format, example, or constraint detail. It confirms the parameter's role but adds nearly nothing beyond the schema's property name.

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?

'Get task by id' states a specific verb (get) and resource (task) plus the retrieval key, which cleanly separates it from list/create/delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the resource+key combination is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this versus task_list or the other task tools, and states no preconditions (e.g. what happens if the id is unknown). For a one-line retrieval tool this is a predictable gap rather than a misleading statement.

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