Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the name — no note on scope, cross-project access, or failure behavior for a missing ID. With an output schema present, return format needn't be described, but the description still contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But the required project_id parameter is entirely unaddressed, and the ambiguity with dida365_get_task_by_id remains unresolved, so the definition is only minimally complete for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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%, and both task_id and project_id are plain strings with no descriptions. The phrase 'by ID' loosely maps to task_id, but the description never mentions that project_id is also required or what it scopes, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get a single task by ID'), which is adequate on its own. However, the sibling list contains both 'dida365_get_task' and 'dida365_get_task_by_id', and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from that near-identical sibling, leaving the agent unable to tell them apart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives (get_task_by_id, get_project_tasks, filter_tasks, etc.). Nothing states prerequisites or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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