task_getById

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating return fields (task name, assignee, due date, priority, process instance), but omits mutation safety details, error cases (e.g., task not found), and authorization requirements.

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 sentences efficiently structured: first states the operation and target, second details the return payload. No redundancy or tautology; every word contributes necessary information.

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?

While the description compensates somewhat for the empty schema by mentioning the ID and listing return fields, gaps remain regarding error handling, the actual location/format of the ID input (given the empty schema), and behavioral edge cases.

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?

Despite having 0 parameters in the schema (baseline 4), the description adds crucial semantic information by referencing 'its ID', indicating what input is conceptually required. It also clarifies the return structure, compensating for both empty input schema and missing output 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 specific action (Retrieve), resource (single user task), and identification method (by its ID), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_list (which returns multiple) and task_update/task_create (which modify).

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies usage when a specific identifier is known, providing implicit contrast to task_list for browsing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or error handling (e.g., 'use when you have a specific task ID from a previous task_list call').

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