tasks_get

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 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the task doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details of a specific task'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency without being overly terse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how parameters affect the output, or behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with undocumented inputs and outputs, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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 mentions no parameters, while the schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. 'taskId' is required but unexplained; 'associations' and 'properties' arrays are undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving all parameter meanings ambiguous to an agent.

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 details of a specific task' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like tasks_list or tasks_search, which also retrieve task information. The description is functional but lacks specificity about 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single task by ID (as implied by the required 'taskId' parameter), nor does it contrast with tasks_list (for multiple tasks) or tasks_search (for filtered searches). Without this context, an agent might misuse it when other tools are more appropriate.

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