get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read via 读取, but says nothing about behavior when task_id does not exist, permissions, or whether the read has any 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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the key scope (single task, complete fields) front-loaded. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing redundant is present.

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 getter with no output schema, the mention of 完整字段 partially signals the return payload, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent guessing about error behavior and permissions.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task_id (任务 id，必填). The description adds nothing beyond restating that one task is targeted, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 (读取/read) and resource (单个任务/single task) plus the scope of the read (完整字段/complete fields). It implicitly contrasts with list_tasks by emphasizing a single task, but it never names siblings 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?

It contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_tasks for bulk retrieval or update_task for mutation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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