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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention required context (e.g., the need for contactId), potential return format, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure of 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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no redundant or filler information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is a simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks details that would help the agent fully understand the invocation context. For example, it does not mention that `contactId` is also required, nor does it describe the expected return value. While the schema supplies parameter info, the description alone is minimally adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 100% (both `taskId` and `contactId` have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'ID' without clarifying the dual-parameter requirement. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, this score is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a specific task by ID, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task'). The phrase 'a specific task' distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_tasks` which likely lists tasks. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_tasks` or `create_task`. Usage is implied by the name and purpose: it is for retrieving one task by ID. However, no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided, leaving it to the agent to infer.

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