Get Kanban task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one behavioral detail: "writing redacted receipts," which is a meaningful side-effect disclosure (though the term 'receipts' is somewhat cryptic and unexplained). No contradiction with annotations; the description adds modest behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One dense sentence that conveys the HTTP mapping, the resource read, the scoping parameters, and the receipt side-effect. Efficient and front-loaded with the core action (reads one Kanban task by id). The only minor issue is that 'writing redacted receipts' is an unexplained jargon term that may confuse an agent, but overall the description is compact and purposeful.

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 simple read tool with an output schema present, full annotation coverage (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and 100% param schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The 'redacted receipts' behavioral note adds value, though an explanation of what receipts are or what the output schema returns would be more complete. Still, the combination of annotations + schema + description covers the tool's contract adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (id, board, tenant) already having a descriptive comment in the schema. The description's phrase "with optional board slug and tenant" clarifies the intended role of the two optional params—that they are scoping/namespacing qualifiers rather than filter criteria—adding interpretative value beyond the raw schema field 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 states a specific verb+resource: "reads one Kanban task by id" with optional board slug and tenant. It identifies this as a wrapper for GET /api/plugins/kanban/tasks/{id}, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hermes_kanban_task_create, update, and specify. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 notes it requires an id and optionally accepts board slug and tenant, implying when these are needed for a successful lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling read tools like hermes_kanban_run_get or hermes_kanban_board_get, nor does it note whether board/tenant are needed for namespacing versus optional scoping. Usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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