get_issue_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about error behavior for invalid IDs, permissions, or what a successful lookup returns.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded, but the second is essentially a restatement of the first with only marginally more information. It is not bloated, but one sentence would have sufficed.

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, the description should at least hint at what is returned or how failures behave. Combined with the unaddressed two-identifier requirement and no sibling routing, the definition leaves meaningful gaps.

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 reported as 0% (the nested taskId/issueId descriptions are near-tautological), so the description must carry the load. It says 'its unique identifier' in the singular, which is misleading: the schema requires both an issueId and a taskId. The description does not clarify this two-key requirement.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get a specific task'), and the second sentence adds the retrieval mechanism (unique identifier). However, the two sentences largely restate each other, and nothing distinguishes this singular retrieval from the sibling collection tool get_issue_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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of get_issue_tasks, get_my_issue_tasks_collection, or put_issue_task/delete_issue_task. The singular-vs-plural distinction is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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