task_get

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns fields (body, status, deadline, chat flag), implying a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the task must exist. The description is adequate but not explicit about behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence in Russian, with no extraneous text. It front-loads the key return fields. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., specifying that it is a read operation). Overall, it earns its place with minimal waste.

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 an output schema exists (but not shown), the description does not need to detail return types. However, with no annotations and a simple tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it lists returned aspects but omits usage context (e.g., requires task_id, is safe to call repeatedly). For a straightforward get tool, this is average completeness.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The single required parameter 'task_id' is not described in the tool description. The return field list implies task_id is needed to identify the task, but the description does not explicitly link the parameter to its purpose or validate its format.

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 Russian description indicates the tool retrieves a task's header including body, status, deadline, and discussion chat presence. It clearly specifies the resource (task) and verb (get), and the list of fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_list (full list) or task_chat (chat only). However, the term 'шапка' is slightly vague and could be interpreted differently.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., task_id), nor does it exclude use cases. With siblings like tasks_list and task_chat, the description fails to help an agent decide which tool to invoke.

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