get_task

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). The description adds behavioral detail about the returned fields (description, due date, owner, completion state, attached entity) and the possibility of standalone tasks, which goes beyond the annotations by outlining the response content, though it does not cover error cases or side effects.

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: two sentences that state the purpose, the response contents, and the alternative for batch operations. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 schema covers both parameters and the description addresses purpose, usage, and return content, the tool definition is complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not need to explain return formats or error handling since no output schema is present and the context is straightforward.

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 schema descriptions cover both parameters adequately: 'id' is described as 'Task ID' with integer type, and 'embed' as 'Comma-separated embeds' with valid tokens listed. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: 'Fetch a single task by its numeric id.' It specifies the resource (task) and action (fetch), and explicitly distinguishes it from the batch variant get_tasks, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 explicit usage guidance: use this tool for a single task, and use get_tasks for batch fetches of up to 50. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over its sibling.

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