tasks_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the taskId doesn't exist. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, such as by hinting at parameter roles.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of optional parameters, expected return values, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that retrieves data with configurable options, this leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (taskId, properties, associations) are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'details' but doesn't explain what parameters control this—for example, that 'properties' might filter returned fields or 'associations' might include related data. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 details of a specific task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_search' that might also retrieve task information. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'tasks_list', 'tasks_search', and 'tasks_get', there's no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving a single task by ID while others might handle bulk operations or filtering. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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