todoist_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 mentions that it 'Get[s] a single task by ID' and returns 'A formatted string containing the task details,' which covers basic read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits, making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Get a single task by ID.'), followed by brief sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete enough for basic use. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, so it adequately addresses the context without being overly verbose.

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?

The description adds meaning by specifying that 'task_id' is 'The ID of the task to retrieve,' which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's type definition (string). With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates adequately, but it doesn't provide additional context like format or constraints, so it meets the baseline for minimal parameter info.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single task by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'todoist_get_tasks' (plural) beyond the singular/plural difference, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves a task by ID, suggesting it's for when you have a specific task identifier. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'todoist_get_tasks' for multiple tasks or other sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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