get_task_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., what happens if the task doesn't exist), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get information about a specific task') and adds necessary detail ('by ID or name'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves task information. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., task details, status, metadata), potential errors, or how to handle the 'ID or name' choice. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves critical gaps for the agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('taskId' and 'taskName'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by noting that 'taskName' is an 'alternative to taskId', but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or usage constraints beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get information') and resource ('specific task'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies retrieval by 'ID or name', which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve tasks (e.g., 'get_tasks_by_tag' or 'filter_tasks'), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_tasks_by_tag' or 'filter_tasks', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., whether it works for all tasks or only certain types). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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