get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The explicit GET method and path signal a read-only, idempotent operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any potential caveats, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 short clauses with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the HTTP endpoint provides additional precision without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description and schema together are largely sufficient for calling the tool. The main gaps are the lack of explicit return value details and any mention of required authentication or edge cases, but these are minor for a straightforward get-by-id operation.

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 50%; extraQuery is already well-documented with examples, but the id parameter has no schema description. The description's 'by id' clarifies that the id parameter is the task's unique identifier, adding meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a task by id' and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint '(GET /tasks/{id})'. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from list_tasks and other get_* siblings that target different resources.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when the caller already has a task identifier, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus list_tasks or update_task. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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