get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the returned task includes its etag and that specifying the list avoids multiple requests. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a practical optimization tip. No wasted words and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with full parameter documentation and safe annotations, the description is adequate. It conveys the return includes the etag, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not cover error cases, but the simplicity of the operation makes that a minor gap.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining why the optional 'list' parameter matters, tying it to request efficiency rather than just re-listing the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the operation ('Read one task by uid') and the resource, and highlights the etag. It naturally distinguishes this tool from list_tasks and other siblings by focusing on a single task lookup by identifier.

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 description provides clear contextual guidance: naming the list optimizes the request to one call instead of one per list. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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