Get task by number

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it resolves the number to a UUID and returns the same shape as get_task. This gives the agent useful context about the tool's internal behavior and output, while not overpromising. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is compact while still providing essential context.

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 lookup with two well-described parameters and a read-only annotation. The description states the return shape by referencing get_task, which is sufficient given there is no output schema. It does not mention error handling, but that is not necessary for this level of complexity.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters (number as #N without '#', board_slug as the board slug). The description adds minor context ('human-friendly number', 'within a board') but does not materially enhance the schema's parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('task by its human-friendly number'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling get_task by noting it resolves the number to the UUID. It clearly states the scope ('within a board') and the use case, making it unambiguous.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: 'Handy when you know the #N but not the UUID.' This implies the alternative (get_task when the UUID is known) and provides context, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it.

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