get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return fields (status, assignees, description, subtasks, priority, team label) and noting the include_subtasks default behavior, which goes beyond what the annotations or schema alone convey.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief note on accepted ID formats, a sentence on return content, and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, two simple parameters, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input formats, return fields, and default behavior. It lacks an explicit comparison to search_tasks for retrieval workflows, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: task_id specifies the accepted formats (custom ID or UUID) and include_subtasks explains its function and default (true). This adds meaning well beyond the bare type info in the schema.

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 opens with 'Get detailed info for a task,' a specific verb+resource phrase that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_tasks (searching) or get_sprint_tasks (listing tasks in a sprint). It also lists the kind of information returned (status, assignees, subtasks, priority, etc.), reinforcing its purpose.

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 states that it 'Accepts custom IDs (DEV-1234) or UUIDs,' which implies the tool is used when you have a specific task ID in hand. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like search_tasks or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion/alternatives guidance.

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