get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Get' clearly conveys a read-only operation, and the phrase 'including its history, references, and metadata' sets expectations about the return payload. It does not mention error cases or auth, but for a simple fetch tool this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word adds value. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and return contents. It explains what detailed information includes, making it complete for a get-by-ID operation. No additional context is necessary.

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 only the 'id' parameter documented as 'Task ID'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate here. The description does not explain the format or constraints of the ID beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific task'), and clarifies scope by mentioning 'history, references, and metadata.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (lists all tasks) and get_task_references (only references).

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 implies use when you need detailed information for one specific task, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks or get_task_references. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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