sprrint_tasks_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'including comments and attachments' discloses part of the return content. However, the description does not mention error behavior, project scoping side effects, or any permissions requirements, leaving gaps for such a minimal 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every part adds value: the action, the identifier format, and the included related data. It is an appropriately sized description for a simple getter tool.

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?

Contextual completeness is moderate for a low-complexity tool. The description covers the main purpose and included data, but the semantics of the optional 'project' parameter remain undocumented and no output schema exists to clarify the return shape. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only elaborates on the 'key' parameter by providing an example format ('BR-12'). The optional 'project' parameter is left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. An agent could not confidently know how or why 'project' affects the lookup.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a task'), and the key lookup mechanism ('by key (BR-12)'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also indicates that the response includes comments and attachments, which adds useful specificity beyond the bare resource name. This distinguishes it from related tools like sprrint_tasks_list.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent already has a task key and needs the full task details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like sprrint_tasks_list or sprrint_search, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but only implied, not directly contrasted with siblings.

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