Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that the result includes planning and lifecycle fields, giving some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like not-found errors or ownership restrictions, so it adds moderate value only.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes relevant qualification ('owned', 'planning and lifecycle fields'), making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no output schema). The description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (planning and lifecycle fields). Given the low complexity and available annotations, the description is nearly complete, though it could have mentioned the output structure or error handling explicitly.

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% (task_id has no property description). The tool description does not explain the parameter either; it only says 'Get one owned Task' without explicitly stating that task_id is the unique identifier. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should have compensated for the missing schema documentation, which it does not.

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 one owned Task, including its current planning and lifecycle fields' clearly identifies the verb (Get), resource (Task), and scope (owned, with planning and lifecycle fields). It distinguishes from list_tasks (which lists all) and get_task_planning (which only gets planning) by specifying what is included.

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 when to use: to fetch a single owned task by ID. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_tasks for all tasks'. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over list/get siblings.

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