vikunja_get_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic function without mentioning the optional expand parameter, response format, error behavior, or access requirements. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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: 'Get a single task by ID.' Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is exactly as concise as its simple purpose requires.

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 optional expand parameter with four documented enum values (subtasks, buckets, reactions, comments), but the description omits this entirely. With no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without critical context about how to use expand and what the response will contain, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.

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 100% with descriptions for both task_id and expand. The description reinforces that task_id identifies the target task, but adds little meaning beyond the schema. The expand parameter's semantics remain generic ('Expand task details'), so the description does not compensate or enhance beyond baseline.

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 'Get a single task by ID' clearly identifies the specific verb (get), resource (task), and distinguishing feature (by ID). It unambiguously differentiates from sibling list, create, update, and delete task operations.

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 such as vikunja_list_tasks or vikunja_update_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, ideal use cases, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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