get_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'fetch' and lists included content (status, version, history), but it does not mention error handling, return format details, or any prerequisites. For a simple read operation this is a moderate disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, qualifier, and key content. Every word contributes value with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (full details, status, version, history) and the input required. It could mention error behavior or edge cases, but these are minor gaps for this tool's simplicity.

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 fully documented in the schema with a pattern and example. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond reinforcing 'by id', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches full details for a single task by id, with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('task'), and uniquely identifies the scope ('by id') distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks and search_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?

Clear context is given: use when you need full details for one task by its id. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the 'by id' qualifier makes the appropriate usage obvious relative to sibling tools that list or search tasks.

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