fetch

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns the full contents and explicitly noting that comments are not included and should be fetched separately via find-comments.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the required ID format and a concise caveat about comments. Every sentence 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?

Given the single parameter, robust annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: what it fetches, the ID format, and what it does not return. No critical information is missing.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with the exact format. The tool description repeats that format rather than adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full contents of a task or project by its ID'), and gives the exact ID formats. This makes it clearly distinct from the many sibling find* and search tools, which are for discovery rather than retrieval by known 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?

It clearly conveys that the tool is for fetching a single task or project via a prefixed ID, and it explicitly directs comment retrieval to find-comments. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives like find-tasks or find-projects, but the 'by its ID' framing provides enough contextual guidance.

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