get-task-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a task but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), if it returns archived tasks, authentication needs, rate limits, or the response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or response format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'taskId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific task by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-tasks-backlog' or 'get-tasks-by-day' by specifying retrieval of a single task via ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get-archived-tasks' or mention if archived tasks are included, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), exclusions (e.g., not for archived tasks), or comparisons to siblings like 'get-tasks-by-day' for bulk retrieval. Usage is implied only by the name and purpose, lacking explicit context.

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