Get a task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the truncation behavior (description cut at 1500 characters in concise mode) and the structuredContent {task} return shape, which an agent cannot learn from the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that begins with the verb and scope before the field inventory; nothing is wasted, though the lengthy field enumeration is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

A two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema needs little more: the description covers scope, returned content, truncation, and return envelope. Only explicit sibling routing (vs. heliyos_tasks_list) is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description goes further by quantifying the concise-mode truncation at 1500 characters, giving the agent a concrete reason to prefer detailed when the body text matters. The task_id format requirement is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with clear scope: 'Fetches one task by id', then enumerates what comes back (title, status, priority, due date, assignees, workers, linked records, description). This makes it plainly distinct from the list/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'by id' — an agent can infer it should call this when it already holds a task id rather than browsing with heliyos_tasks_list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on choosing concise vs detailed beyond the mechanical effect.

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