amulen_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing exactly what payload comes back, including that the description is available in both HTML and plain text and that checklist items carry their ids (useful for follow-up update/delete calls). It does not mention failure behavior for bad slugs or whether comments are paginated.

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 well-formed sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical about HTML/plain text interrupts the field list slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description does its part by enumerating the main return fields, which is enough for an agent to know a single call yields description, assignees, checklist, and comments. However, with three undocumented required path-like parameters and no note on how to obtain them, the definition is not fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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% across three required parameters (project_slug, board_slug, task_slug), and the description says nothing about them: no explanation of the slug hierarchy, no hint that all three levels are required, and no guidance on fetching slugs from the list tools. The description fully fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a task') and enumerates the substantive fields returned: description in HTML and plain text, assignees, checklist with item ids, and comments. That distinguishes it well from list-style siblings by name, though it never explicitly contrasts with amulen_list_tasks or amulen_my_tasks.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of retrieving a single task versus listing tasks, and no note on when to prefer this over amulen_get_board or amulen_my_tasks. Any usage signal is inferred purely from the verb 'Get'.

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