get_task

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it opens by declaring 'Read-only' and states both the success and failure modes ('Returns the single item object, or an error if not found'). Minor gaps remain, such as no mention of authentication prerequisites, rate limits, or a complete field list, but the essential behavioral safety traits are disclosed.

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 three terse sentences with meaningful content in each: the read-only trait, the fetch action with returned fields, the usage sequencing, and the return/error behavior. It is appropriately front-loaded with 'Read-only' and 'Fetch one item'; the minor grammar issue ('give you the ids') is a slight polish defect but does not hurt clarity.

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 a small 2-parameter input with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough — the inputs, the return type ('single item object'), the key fields (body, tags, due date), and the error case. It is nearly complete; only a fuller enumeration of the returned object shape would push it to a 5, which is not really required for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including where the ids come from ('from find results' and 'from find results or list_projects'). The main description does not add detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage applies.

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 and resource: 'Fetch one item (task/note) by its project id + task id', and identifies the returned content (full markdown body, tags, due date). This clearly differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_task_hierarchy and get_task_security, and the mutation tools like update_task and set_task_lifecycle.

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 provides explicit sequencing guidance — 'Use after find/list_projects give you the ids' — positioning the tool in a specific workflow and separating it from the listing/search siblings. It does not enumerate exclusions for near-alternative reads such as context_for_task, task_graph, or similar, though the intent is fairly clear.

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