Get Task By ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world access, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the project_id-free lookup constraint, with no details on error behavior, permissions, or lookup scope.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the behavioral profile, so the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of task_id format guidance and any explicit contrast with dida365_get_task.

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?

There is a single parameter (task_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives the agent no format hints. The description confirms the lookup is keyed on an ID but adds no syntax, format, or example beyond that.

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 specific verb and resource (get a task by ID) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dida365_get_task by noting it needs no project_id. An agent can tell what it retrieves, though the distinction from get_task is stated as a constraint rather than an explicit contrast.

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 phrase 'without needing project_id' effectively encodes the condition under which this tool is preferred over dida365_get_task, so the selection logic is inferable. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative or stating when not to use it.

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