get_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'obtiene' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs, whether it's idempotent, or what format the response takes. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient Spanish sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detalles' includes (fields returned), error responses, authentication requirements, or typical use cases. Given the lack of structured output information, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how to interpret results.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'id' well-documented as a UUID. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain where to find task IDs, provide examples of valid IDs, or describe ID format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('obtiene' - gets/retrieves) and resource ('detalles de una tarea específica' - details of a specific task). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and create_task/update_task (which modify tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'detalles' includes or the exact scope of information returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use get_task versus list_tasks (for multiple tasks) or get_tasks_stats (for aggregated statistics). There's no information about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical usage patterns.

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