Retrieve a task with its effective closing policy and subtasks before verification or review, so agents know the required reviewers, delay, and quality gates.
One task with its effective closing policy (profile, whether a review is required and by whom, review delay, quality gates) and its subtasks. Read it before verifying or reviewing to know what that task needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the response includes the effective closing policy (profile, review requirement and reviewer, review delay, quality gates) and subtasks. This matters because there is no output schema to convey return shape.
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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second gives the call trigger. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing the return payload, which is the key unknown for this tool. The only gap is the unexplained id parameter, which the description should have clarified.
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?
One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the id at all — no format, no indication of whether it is a task identifier vs. a profile/slug. The parameter is guessable from context, but the description adds nothing beyond the 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?
Clearly identifies the resource as a single task (by id) and enumerates the distinctive payload: effective closing policy plus subtasks. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but the scope is precise enough to distinguish it from task_list and task_next.
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?
Gives explicit usage context: 'Read it before verifying or reviewing to know what that task needs.' That is a concrete trigger tied to downstream actions, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.