get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying it's a read operation ('Get detailed task information'), listing comprehensive return data, and clarifying the ID format requirement. It doesn't mention error cases, permissions, or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only 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?

Perfectly structured with zero waste: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance with alternative, third introduces return values, and bullet points efficiently list data categories. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 has an output schema (which covers return values), 1 parameter with 100% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage guidelines, parameter context, and provides a helpful overview of return data categories. No significant gaps remain for this simple read operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the parameter semantics: it explains what 'task_id' represents ('internal task ID'), provides an example format (14677418), and distinguishes it from project-specific numbers. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic description.

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 specific action ('Get detailed task information') and resource ('by its internal ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_task which uses project-specific numbers. It provides a concrete example of the ID format (14677418), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when you have the internal task ID') and when to use an alternative ('For looking up tasks by their project-specific number, use get_project_task instead'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection based on available identifiers.

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