rx_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Только чтение' is partly redundant, but the description adds real value by disclosing the breadth of returned content (correspondence, attachments, all assignments with executors and results) – important since no output schema exists. It does not cover pagination or size limits for large tasks, but idempotentHint=false is not contradicted or addressed.

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 scope statement is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence (usage, id source, alternative) earns its place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and when to prefer it. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. behavior for very large tasks or missing ids), which are not critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's note about where the id appears (rx_my_assignments / rx_list_tasks) largely duplicates the schema's own parameter description, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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?

Names a specific resource (задача) and enumerates its scope (статус, автор, сроки, вложения, переписка, задания с исполнителями). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rx_get_assignment, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States the trigger condition ('когда нужен ход работы по задаче: кто что сделал и на ком она стоит'), names the alternative (rx_get_assignment для одного своего задания), and tells where to obtain the id. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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