get_task

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it ('Fetch' is read-only). The description adds modest context by mentioning that attachments are normalized, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like error cases, auth requirements, or how normalization works.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the specific output scope efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and output shape. However, it lacks parameter guidance, usage context, and any detail about how attachments are normalized or what 'detail fields' includes. The absence of an output schema makes this a more noticeable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented task_gid parameter. It only implies that the task is identified somehow, without explaining that task_gid is the unique identifier or providing any format/source context. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond that.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource and scope: one task's detail fields and normalized attachments. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tasks (search) and list_task_comments (comments only).

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 implies usage: use this when you need the detail fields and attachments of a single task, identified by task_gid. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as search_tasks or get_attachment, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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