readAsanaTask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not detail edge cases, return format, or permissions. For a simple read this is adequate but not rich.

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 zero filler. It immediately states the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description conveys the essential purpose and enough context for an agent to select it. However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' includes or describe the response structure, which would be useful given no output schema exists. This minor gap is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (taskId) with type and description, giving 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'by its ID', adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'retrieves', the resource 'detailed information about a specific Asana task', and the scope 'by its ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listAsanaTasks or readAsanaProject, which target different resources or list operations.

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 tool is used when you have a task ID and need full details, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like searchAsanaTasks or listAsanaTasks, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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