get_asana_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what 'full details' includes, whether related fields (projects, assignee, custom fields) are expanded, or how auth/api_key behaves.

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 with no filler; appropriately sized for a simple lookup. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing sibling and parameter context.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the basics, but it never describes what the returned 'details' contain or how it differs from search_asana_tasks. That omission is the main completeness gap for an agent deciding between Asana retrieval tools.

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 coverage is only 50%: task_gid is described tautologically ('Task GID') and api_key has no description at all. The description mentions 'single task' but gives no guidance on GID format, where to obtain it, or how api_key relates to authentication, so it does not compensate for the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of a single Asana task'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get-like lookups and search_asana_tasks/list_asana_tasks, so an agent must infer which one returns full task detail.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus list_asana_tasks, search_asana_tasks, or update_asana_task. The reader must infer that a Task GID is needed and that search/list are the discovery alternatives.

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