Base Wework Get Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'view' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, pagination, or what 'full details' includes. There is no mention of side effects or constraints, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 one concise sentence with no superfluous words. It directly states the action and condition, which is efficient and easy to parse. There is no wasted text, and the structure is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has an output schema (which likely explains return values), the description does not need to detail that. However, with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context on parameter usage and perhaps distinguish from task-related siblings. It is adequate for a basic get-by-id operation but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it or what 'full details' entails, making it minimally complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by Task ID' which gives meaning to the `id` parameter, but it completely ignores the `access_token` parameter. While the id is the primary key, the description adds only minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name, and does not clarify the format or optionality of access_token.

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 clear action ('view full details') and resource ('task') conditioned on a Task ID, which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_task_comments or get_task_logs, which also retrieve task-related information, so the purpose is clear but the boundary versus alternatives is not defined.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states 'view full details' without mentioning scenarios where this is the appropriate choice, or when to prefer a sibling such as base_wework_get_task_comments or base_wework_list_tasks_by_project. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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