dooray_get_task

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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 that efficiently states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more front-loaded with additional context. There's no wasted language, making it concise.

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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation in the description, but the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral context leaves gaps. It meets a bare minimum but doesn't fully address the tool's needs.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. With 2 required parameters (project_id and post_id) that are undocumented in both schema and description, users lack essential context about what these IDs represent or how to obtain them.

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 the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific task'), which provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'dooray_list_tasks' or explain what constitutes 'detailed information' versus what other tools might provide. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 like 'dooray_list_tasks' or how it relates to sibling comment tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for selecting this tool, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic description, with no explicit guidelines.

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