Get task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of conveying behavior. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation and implies non-destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose what happens for missing IDs, authorization requirements, or response shape. This is acceptable for a simple get-by-id tool but not richly transparent.

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. Every word adds meaning: 'Get' states the action, 'single task' states the resource scope, and 'by id' states the lookup key. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool with one required parameteraine and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: the agent knows what action to take and which parameter to fill. It does not cover edge cases like task-not-found or authorization, but given the low complexity of a single-id lookup, the missing information is relatively minor.

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. It adds 'by id,' which maps directly to the taskId parameterBern, but it does not explain the format, expected value semantics, or any constraints beyond the schema's required field declaration. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description provides minimal additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single task by id.' It clearly states the tool returns one task rather than a list, which distinguishes it from list_tasks, create_task, and update_task. The phrase 'single' and 'by id' adds precision beyond the title.

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 appropriate use case: retrieving exactly one task when the task ID is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single task by id' wording provides clear context for when this tool should be selected over list_tasks or update_task.

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