upservice_get_task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'full details' as JSON, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects).

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?

Description is two short sentences plus structured Args/Returns. Front-loaded with the purpose, 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 simple read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. No mention of error cases or prerequisites, but these are minor 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?

Only one parameter (task_id) with a clear description in the schema ('The Upservice task ID'). The tool description repeats 'task_id (int)' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, which already has coverage. Context indicates 0% schema description coverage, which may be a metric error, but the dimension is scored based on actual added 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?

The description clearly states 'Retrieve full details for a single task by ID.' This uses a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (task details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks, update_task, and delete_task.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upservice_list_tasks or other get tools. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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