Get task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is known. The description adds that the result includes notes, links, and subtask parent, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The addition is modest, aligning with a 3.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action ('Full detail for one task') and efficient in listing examples. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the return by mentioning 'full detail' and listing specific fields (notes, links, subtask parent). It does not discuss error handling or alternative tools, but for a simple read operation with good annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both list_id and task_id described (e.g., 'List id, title, or alias' and 'Task id, as shown in square brackets'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Full detail for one task' which identifies a read operation for a single task, distinguishing it from list_tasks (many) and search_tasks. It also enumerates specific contents (notes, links, subtask parent) that reinforce its purpose.

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 for when a single task's full details are needed, but it does not explicitly compare against siblings like list_tasks or search_tasks, nor does it provide exclusions. The 'one task' phrasing is a subtle guideline, but more explicit direction would improve the score.

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