get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about inline_assets: presigned URLs are short-lived, anonymously fetchable, and the embedded Plane URLs require a session cookie. This goes beyond the basic retrieval semantics, though it doesn't cover error cases or response structure.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph adds essential, non-obvious detail about handling inline assets. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the identifier formats and explains the nuanced inline_assets behavior, which is critical for the agent to correctly use the response. No missing context for effective invocation.

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 the parameter is already well-documented. The description repeats the same identifier formats ('UUID' and 'PROJECT-N') without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so it doesn't elevate beyond the baseline.

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 a single task by UUID or by `PROJECT-N` identifier', specifying the exact resource and the two accepted identifier formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, which retrieves multiple tasks.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—use to fetch a single task by ID—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_tasks or other sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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