Get Alabasta task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Read') and discloses the fields returned, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior or output format, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every part adds value without 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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the key fields returned and both input methods. It lacks details on response format or error handling, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools make this sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters, but the description compensates by instructing to pass 'taskId or identifier' and gives an example identifier (TOM-24). This clarifies that the parameters are alternative identifiers, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Read an Alabasta task') and the resource, listing key fields (title, description, status, priority). It distinguishes itself from siblings like alabasta_list_my_tasks by focusing on reading a single task rather than listing 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?

The description explicitly advises using this tool 'before editing' and instructs to pass taskId or identifier. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before editing' context and sibling tool names make the intended usage clear.

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