Read Task Tool

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

The description restates the readOnly semantics already covered by readOnlyHint, but adds genuinely new context beyond the annotation: it works on closed tasks too, and it discloses the breadth of the returned payload. It does not mention pagination or any access restrictions, though for a read-only single-entity fetch that is a minor gap.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the routing/alternative guidance trailing. Every clause carries information — scope, use cases, exclusion, alternative — with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (details, steps, comments, files, history) and noting closed tasks are included. Combined with fully documented parameters and readOnly annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so both parameters (id and session) are already documented in the schema with examples and precedence rules. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one task in full') and enumerates the scope it returns: details, steps, comments, files and history. It also differentiates itself from the related siblings by name, telling the agent to use start_task for working on the task and update_task for answering, so the agent can choose without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given (to see what someone wrote, after a notification, before answering with update_task), plus an explicit alternative (start_task) and even a behavioral exclusion ('do not open the task page in a browser'). Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right choice.

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