Get one task resource

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the default behavior when no identifier is provided (first task member), the return shape (payload under 'task' and resolved URI), and an example. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise—two sentences plus an example—and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause adds useful information: the fetch behavior, the default case, the return format, and an illustrative call.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (3 optional parameters, output schema provided, no nested objects), the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, the key default behavior, and the return structure. The output schema supplements any need for detailed return field documentation.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'uri' and 'task_id' are alternatives, explaining the default when both are omitted, and providing a concrete example (get_task(task_id='Task42')).

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 action ('Fetch a task') and identifies the resource ('task') with explicit mention of the input methods ('by URI or task_id'). It also differentiates from sibling list_tasks by focusing on a single task resource.

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 the use case (fetching a single task when you have a URI or task_id) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list_tasks. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke this tool.

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