tascan_get_task

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: it discloses the photo field pair, the ~1h expiry of photo_signed_url, the stability of photo_url, and the null case. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place by describing the returned photo fields and their caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by sketching the return shape (completions with photo evidence). It could go further on what 'subtasks' contain or whether completions are paginated, but it is strong for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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?

Single required task_id at 100% schema description coverage, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond what the schema already states, so it neither compensates nor regresses.

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 (Get) and resource (task details) and enumerates what is included (completions, subtasks). It is distinguishable from list_tasks and update_task by name, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling retrieval tools (get_event, get_project).

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?

Usage is implied by the singular 'specific task' framing versus plural list siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention that task_id must come from list_tasks/find, and no exclusions. Minimum viable routing guidance.

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