Get task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned payload, but it never discloses that fields are redacted by default or that include_contact_details unlocks PII — a meaningful behavioral trait left entirely to the schema.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the resource and the returned fields. It is a noun fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens the opening but keeps it 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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating the returned data categories. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/permission behavior and default-redaction implications are unstated.

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 both parameters (including the redaction semantics of include_contact_details) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 correct.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates exactly what is returned ('One task with its state (NEW, STARTED, COMPLETED), dates, assignees, labels, attachment titles and form submissions'). The singular 'One task' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_tasks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that a task_id is required to invoke it, and no routing to alternatives such as list_tasks for multiple records. Usage must be inferred purely from the name and the singular noun phrase.

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