get_task

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

With no annotations or output schema, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what fields are returned, or behavior for non-existent IDs. The word 'get' implies safe read, but lacks detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is entirely on-topic with no filler. Every word contributes to clarity.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), but without annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the response shape or error scenarios. It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect after invocation.

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% since 'id' is described as 'Task numeric ID'. The description repeats 'numeric ID' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies when schema fully documents parameters.

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 'Get a single task by its numeric ID' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (task), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks. It precisely identifies the scope (single task) and the key (numeric ID).

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 when a specific task ID is known, but it does not explicitly contrast with list_tasks or other sibling tools. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, though the purpose is self-evident.

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