get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that subtasks, custom fields, and markdown are included, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects, which is acceptable for a read operation but could be more explicit.

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 concise at one sentence, but it could be structured to separate the core function from optional inclusions. It is mostly efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of custom_task_ids and team_id, nor the behavior when boolean flags are false. The agent lacks information to use the tool effectively in varied scenarios.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly mentioning that subtasks and markdown are included, which corresponds to the undocumented boolean parameters. Schema coverage is 60%, so the description compensates for the missing 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'single task', and lists what is included (subtasks, custom fields, markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_subtasks or get_task_comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subtasks or get_task_comments. The agent receives no context on tool selection criteria.

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