get_task

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

No annotations are provided. The description makes it clear this is a read operation ('Get detailed status'), and details the return structure including success/error states. While not exhaustive, it sufficiently conveys the non-destructive behavior and expected output.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections: one-liner, Args, Returns, Example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal, efficient language.

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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description covers input, output (with keys), and an example. For a simple retrieval tool, this is comprehensive. The only gap is explicit usage guidelines, but overall it is complete.

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 description's Args section explains both parameters: task_id (as 'Task ID number') and include_details (as 'Include task line details (default: False)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 retrieves detailed status of a specific task. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists all tasks) and wait_for_task (which waits for completion), as it focuses on a single task's details.

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 implicitly suggests use for individual task status via its name and return structure, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_tasks or wait_for_task. No when-not-to-use context is provided.

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