get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a small behavioral constraint ('one task' as opposed to a list), which is consistent with the annotations and provides marginal value beyond them, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or prerequisites.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the operation, resource, and required identifiers in a directly usable format.

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 single-task retrieval with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. Return shape and error handling are not described, but the absence of an output schema and the low tool complexity make this acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented as to how to obtain it. The description restates the parameter names but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one task'), and the required identifiers ('task-list ID and task ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_tasks (returns multiple tasks) and get_task_list (returns a task list), even without naming alternatives.

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 single task is needed and both IDs are available, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. The schema parameter descriptions partially compensate by directing the agent to list_tasks and list_task_lists for ID provenance.

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