Read one task in full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's main addition is the guarantee of an untruncated description and every reminder. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not discuss error cases or auth requirements, which are not essential for a read-only single-fetch tool.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the key differentiator ('complete task') is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with a single parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and how to obtain the id, and the output schema handles return-value details. No critical information 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?

The schema fully documents the id parameter with 'An id from a listing tool. Not meant to be built by hand.' The description reinforces this by saying 'behind an id from list_tasks,' narrowing the source to the specific sibling tool, which adds slight semantic value. Overall the schema covers the parameter well, and the description does not contradict it.

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 states precisely what the tool returns: the complete task for a given id from list_tasks, including the untruncated description and all reminders. This clearly distinguishes it from list_tasks (which presumably returns truncated summaries) and from sibling tools like get_event or get_journal that fetch other entity types.

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 when to use this tool: after obtaining an id from list_tasks and needing full detail beyond what the list provides. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare to all alternatives, but the contrast with list_tasks is evident, and the tool name 'get_task' plus title 'Read one task in full' reinforces the usage context.

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