Get task by ID

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds that retrieval can be by ID or name, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the schema. It also implies a single task result, which is helpful context. No contradictions.

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, short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and the two ways to specify the task (ID or name). There is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional parameters, both fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists (implicitly providing return structure). The description covers the core selection logic. It would be slightly better if it mentioned the exclusivity of the two params or fallback behavior, but given the available structured information, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates what the schema says (ID or name) but does not add new meaning such as format requirements, mutual exclusivity, or which is preferred. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('information about a specific task') and indicates retrieval by ID or name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_task_counts' or 'find_similar_tasks'.

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 the tool is for fetching a single task by ID or name, but it does not state when to use this versus other retrieval tools (e.g., filter_tasks, get_tasks_by_tag) or mention any prerequisites or limitations (e.g., exactly one of taskId or taskName must be provided).

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