taskhub_task_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the accepted input formats and that it returns 'full details' of a single task. It does not disclose behavior for ambiguous matches (e.g., multiple tasks with the same title) or error behavior for invalid identifiers, which would be valuable given the flexible identifier semantics.

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: first states the verb and resource, second defines the identifier formats precisely, third gives two concrete invocation examples. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists. The description is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 one-parameter get-details tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics completely. It could note whether a search term yields partial matches or requires exact title matches, and whether the response includes subtasks/comments, but these are minor gaps for this tool's complexity. The examples resolve most ambiguity.

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?

The single parameter 'identifier' has 100% schema description coverage, and the tool description adds significant semantics beyond the schema: it enumerates the three accepted formats (UUID, systemCode, search term) and gives concrete examples showing how each is passed. This fully compensates for the schema's terse one-liner.

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 ('Get full details') with a clear resource ('a single task'), and it explicitly defines the accepted identifier formats: UUID, systemCode (TSK-XXXXXX-XXXX), or a title search term. It distinguishes from sibling tools (taskhub_search, taskhub_tasks_list) by specifying that it returns full details of ONE task rather than a list or general search.

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 usage by showing exact invocation examples with a UUID systemCode and a title search term, which clarifies when to use this tool (retrieve single task details) versus siblings like taskhub_tasks_list or taskhub_search. It does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or provide exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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