asana_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the default rich field set and opt_fields override behavior, but does not discuss edge cases like missing tasks or response format. This is acceptable given the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The core action and the key customizability are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 single-task fetch operation with annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. It lists the notable returned fields and explains opt_fields usage. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the response shape, but the field list mitigates this.

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 both task_gid and opt_fields clearly documented with examples. The description restates that opt_fields can override defaults but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one task') and enumerates the rich fields returned (assignee, projects, section memberships, custom fields, notes, subtask count). This clearly distinguishes the tool from list/search variants and leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 the tool is for fetching a single task and mentions how to adjust opt_fields, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_tasks or search_tasks. The usage context is understood but exclusionary guidance is absent.

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