invoiceninja_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that the full detail set is returned, with no mention of whether related records must be requested via 'include' or what happens on a missing id.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; it identifies the resource and key immediately. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden, and 'with all details' is vague given that fields/include/response_format let callers trim or expand the payload. For a simple read-by-id tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so id, fields, include and response_format are all documented in the schema itself, including examples for the hashed id. The description repeats the id semantics without adding anything beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (task) and names the identifying key (hashed id), which separates it from the sibling invoiceninja_list_tasks. 'With all details' is slightly redundant but does signal a full-object fetch rather than a summary.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It does not say to reach for this only when a single task id is already known, nor does it point to invoiceninja_list_tasks for discovery, leaving the agent to infer the routing 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.