get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it declares read-only semantics ('change nothing'), the serialization format, the omission rule for empty fields, and the exact failure message for an unknown id. That is more behavioral disclosure than most read tools provide.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and effect, then routing, then the error case. Every sentence adds information; nothing repeats the schema or title.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, field-omission behavior, error semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already explains where the id comes from (list_tasks, search_tasks, add_task). The description only adds the trivial 'use it when you know the id', 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one task by id') plus the explicit non-effect ('change nothing'), which separates it from every mutating sibling. The return contract ('Returns the task as JSON') is stated up front.

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 positive trigger ('Use it when you know the id') and names both alternatives with their selecting conditions: search_tasks for text lookup, list_tasks for views like today or inbox. No inference required.

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