get_task_effort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that this is a read returning estimates, accepted actuals, and worked time, plus that the response contains a teamMembers collection keyed by TaskUserId. It does not state permissions, scoping, or whether effort is aggregated across all assignees, so a small gap remains.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and ending with the sibling pointer. Slightly dense phrasing ('TaskUserId is the assignment key') assumes context the reader may not have, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does name the three effort metrics plus the teamMembers/UserId/name/email structure. It leaves open whether results are per-assignee, per-category, or aggregated, which an agent would want to know before formatting its answer.

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% for both taskId and projectId, so the schema already documents the inputs; the description adds no extra syntax or constraint information. Baseline 3 applies, though its explanation of TaskUserId as the response-side assignment key is a bonus covered elsewhere.

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 ('Read') and resource ('task effort') and enumerates the three quantities returned: planned estimates, accepted actual effort, worked time. It distinguishes itself from the write counterpart update_task_effort, though it doesn't differentiate against near neighbors like get_task or list_task_progress.

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 closing sentence implicitly gives a read-vs-write split: read here, write with update_task_effort. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or exclusions versus other task inspection tools such as get_task or list_task_progress.

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