Get Task planning

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal beyond that, mentioning the 'existing Task detail endpoint' as implementation context but no extra behavioral traits like error handling or permissions.

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 conveys the action, target, and scope without redundancy. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple read operation with strong annotations and a single parameter, the description adequately conveys what is returned (planning and due fields). It lacks explicit return format or error scenarios, but the 'planning and due fields' phrase covers the essential output, and no output schema exists to shift the burden.

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?

Only one required parameter (task_id) with zero schema description coverage. The description implies task_id identifies the task but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's uuid type and the word 'Task' in the description.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one Task's current planning and due fields'), distinguishing it from general task retrieval (personal_os_get_task) and planning updates (personal_os_update_task_planning). The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need only the planning and due fields of a single task. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like personal_os_get_task or personal_os_list_planning_tasks.

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