tasks_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two valuable behavior notes: the server does not truncate DESCRIPTION (returns as-is from Bitrix24), and include_attachments adds normalized attachments via UF_TASK_WEBDAV_FILES. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what fields are returned by default when select is omitted, or any potential side effects. The notes are helpful but incomplete.

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: two sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a targeted recommendation. Every word earns its place, and there is no padding or repetition of schema information.

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 get-by-id tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes by default, what happens when select is omitted, or the structure of the return value. Since there is no output schema, the description could have described the default return shape or the effect of omitting select. However, the simplicity of the tool and the presence of parameter descriptions mitigate this gap.

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%, so all three parameters already have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds extra value by recommending a specific select array for summary queries and clarifying that the server does not trim DESCRIPTION. This goes beyond the schema's basic field listing and helps the agent construct better requests.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Получить детальную информацию о задаче по ID' (get detailed information about a task by ID). The verb+resource is specific and distinct from sibling tools like tasks_list or tasks_search_text, which are not ID-based. The recommendation about using select with DESCRIPTION adds a useful pointer without obscuring the core purpose.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this when you have a task ID' or any exclusions like 'do not use for summary queries without select'. The only hint is the select recommendation, which is about parameter usage, not tool selection. This leaves the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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