Get an OmniFocus task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'with full detail' but does not clarify what that includes, how the task is identified, error behavior, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a tool where the safety profile is otherwise undocumented.

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 with no filler words. Every phrase ('single task', 'by its id', 'full detail') adds value, making it both concise and informative for its length.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but acceptable. It omits details about return structure, error cases, and relationship to siblings, which would be helpful given the lack of annotations and output schema. It meets the minimum viable bar but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates by mentioning 'by its id,' clarifying that the sole parameter is the task identifier. However, it does not provide format, source, or validation details for the id, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single task'), and the method ('by its id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (multiple) or edit_task (modification). The phrase 'with full detail' adds specificity about the returned data scope.

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 usage: call this when you need a specific task's full details, as opposed to listing tasks or modifying them. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as the task ID being valid.

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