get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states read-only behavior, the exact data fields returned (markdown body, tags, due date), and error handling. This provides adequate transparency for a simple fetch tool.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. Each sentence contributes: first defines the operation and output, second gives usage context, third clarifies return behavior. Efficiently communicated.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, inputs, and return type. It also includes error handling. However, it does not address any potential prerequisites beyond having the IDs or permission considerations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the source of the IDs but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 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 specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'one item (task/note)', and the required identifiers (project id + task id). It differentiates from siblings like `create_task` and `list_projects` by focusing on a single item retrieval.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool after `find` or `list_projects` provide the IDs, establishing a clear usage sequence. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings like `similar`.

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