get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discharges the most important part: the privacy/permission model for delivered work product and the signing-key requirement. It omits error behavior for an invalid task_id and any pagination/response-size notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a second sentence devoted to the access restriction. Every sentence earns its place, though the privacy sentence is dense enough that it could be trimmed 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the work of both by listing the returned fields and the permission model, so an agent knows what it gets and when. It is slightly thin on failure modes for a missing/invalid task_id.

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 100% and there is a single parameter with a format example ('task_abc123') already in the schema. The description only restates 'by its task ID', adding no syntax or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get full details for a specific task by its task ID') and it enumerates the returned facets (creator, bounty, payment/review state, provenance receipt, payment record). That distinguishes it from browse_tasks, get_receipt and get_task_payment without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives the access condition that selects behavior: delivered work product content is only returned to the two parties and only when this MCP holds their signing key, while everything else needs no auth. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. browse_tasks when the ID is unknown) or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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