get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses data freshness (bypasses DataMart sync delay) and enumerates the returned fields, but says nothing about failure modes for an unknown taskId/projectId, permission requirements, or read-only safety guarantees.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the payload, then the prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and every sentence contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned field groups, and it establishes the authoritative-source detail an agent needs to trust the values. It stops short of covering error behavior or how projectId relates to taskId scope.

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% for both taskId and projectId, so the baseline applies; the description only adds that task IDs come from list_project_tasks or search_tasks, which is helpful but marginal.

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 (fetch full detail of one task) and adds a distinguishing scope claim — v2 REST as source of truth, unaffected by DataMart sync delay — which separates it from query_datamart and the list/search siblings.

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 routes the agent: use list_project_tasks or search_tasks first to obtain a task ID. That covers the prerequisite workflow well, though it doesn't state what to do instead when a cheaper summary would suffice or what the tool is not for.

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