get_task

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose what the response contains (metadata, brief, worklog, comments), which is genuinely useful read semantics. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown ids, or pagination of worklog/comments.

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?

One dense sentence with zero filler, and the most important information (what the payload contains) is front-loaded before the usage hint.

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 and no annotations, the description adequately defines the returned payload's composition for a single-parameter read tool. It falls short only on failure modes and whether worklog/comments are truncated.

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?

Single id parameter with 100% schema description coverage including the T-7/7 normalization rule, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates its parts: metadata, Markdown brief, worklog entries, and comments. That content list implicitly separates it from list_tasks (summary listing) and get_sprint (different resource), 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?

The parenthetical 'check it for answers and review notes' implies a usage pattern — read this to find human replies on a task — but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_tasks or comment_task, and no exclusions.

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