Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that notes and due date are part of the payload, which is useful return-shape context given there is no output schema, but it does not mention failure behavior for a missing or invalid task_id.

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?

One short sentence with the key identifier constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves it close to under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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, fully annotated read tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers the core fetch and hints at returned fields. It omits what happens on a not-found task and does not note that list_id scopes the lookup, both of which an agent would want when calling it.

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 100%, with task_id, list_id (including the '@default' meaning) and the response_format enum all documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the ID-based lookup and adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 one task by ID') and names the two fields the caller receives, so an agent can distinguish a single-record fetch from the sibling gtasks_list_tasks. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative.

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 'by ID' implies a lookup when the identifier is already known, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus gtasks_list_tasks, nor any prerequisite that the ID must come from gtasks_list_tasks (that detail lives only in the schema).

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