things_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: notes are truncated at 10,000 characters and a modification timestamp is included, which tells the agent what to expect from the response.

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?

A single sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted words; the notes cap and timestamp are appended as useful qualifiers rather than padding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, the ID constraint, and two notable return fields. It is nearly complete, missing only failure behavior for a nonexistent ID.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and 'exact ID' clarifies that no fuzzy or partial matching occurs. It does not mention the schema's maxLength of 150, but the core semantic constraint is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read one task by exact ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from list-style or mutation siblings like things_list_items and things_update_task, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'by exact ID' implies when this tool is appropriate (single-item retrieval when the ID is known), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over things_list_items or what happens if the ID is unknown.

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