get_task

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

Description mentions 'full detail' and lists returned fields, giving a clear picture of what the tool provides. Since no annotations are given, the description adequately carries the burden. It implies read-only behavior ('get'), but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the operation and output, second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words, all content earns its place.

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 no output schema and only 5 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and key optional behaviors. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but those are standard. The tool is simple and the description is sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by summarizing the resource and the optional includes (subtasks, markdown description) in context. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a single task by id' and lists specific fields (status, assignees, custom fields, dates, optional subtasks, markdown description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tasks (multiple tasks) and get_subtasks (children only).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to inspect one known task,' which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the focus on a single known task implies it is not for bulk listing or searching.

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