Get Task

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, providing a clear safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, only briefly mentioning body_format as a parameter that affects representation. It does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or other side effects, but the annotations cover the most critical safety aspect.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a minimal parameter list. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it efficient for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description provides enough context: the required ID parameter, an optional format parameter, and read-only intent via annotations. While it does not specify the exact response structure, the tool's simplicity and the clear purpose make this adequate. Sibling tools provide context for alternative operations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It does clarify that task_id is the identifier and body_format controls the body representation. However, it lacks specifics such as acceptable values for body_format or behavior when null, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Get a task by ID.' This uses a specific verb and resource, defining exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists tasks) and update_task (which modifies tasks) by focusing on retrieval of a single task by ID.

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: when a specific task ID is known and the task details are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., list_tasks) or any exclusion criteria. Since the purpose is clear, the usage is implicitly understood but lacks explicit guidance.

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