Task Get Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and 'including body' adds useful behavior beyond a simple metadata lookup. It does not mention error or authorization cases, but these are not critical for a simple get-by-id tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. The core action and identifier type are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 a one-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions, an existing output schema, and a clear explanatory description, the definition is nearly complete. It might benefit from pointing to task_search for discovering entryIds, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 schema provides only a bare string property with no description. The tool description compensates by identifying the parameter as an 'Outlook entryId', giving the agent the key semantic needed to invoke the tool correctly. It could add format or example details, but this is adequate for a single required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('a single task'), and states the scope ('by its Outlook entryId'). It also adds distinctive detail ('including body') that separates it from sibling tools like task_search.

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 makes clear it is for fetching one known task via an entryId, which implies the appropriate context: use it after you have an entryId and need full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intent is unambiguous.

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