runrunit_get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add value by clarifying that the rich description is intentionally not included in this response. However, it does not describe the response shape, error behavior, or any access requirements, leaving relevant gaps for a tool with no 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the note about the separate description endpoint is compact and immediately useful.

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 get-by-ID tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, this description plus the schema is largely complete. The only real omission is the exact return shape, which is a minor gap for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema has 100% coverage: the 'id' parameter is described as a Task ID with type number. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage there is little room or need to add more.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single task by ID'), and the system ('Runrun.it'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from runrunit_get_task_description by noting that the rich description lives on a separate endpoint.

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 clear direction to use runrunit_get_task_description when the rich description is needed, which is a useful alternative. It does not discuss when to prefer list_tasks or other lookup tools, but for a single-task-by-ID operation the intended usage is clear enough.

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