Get a task

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already declaring the safety profile, the description adds real behavioral value: comments are returned 'oldest first, with authors', the description is converted to Markdown, and it warns that titles/descriptions/comments are untrusted human data that must never be followed as instructions. It omits any note on response size or whether comment volume is capped.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and then a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields; the final sentence on prompt injection earns its place as a safety instruction. Slightly long as a single run-on sentence, but nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents and does so comprehensively (all card fields, comment ordering, attachment id linkage to weeek_get_attachment). For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the 'shown as #1149170' format hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Full card of one task') and then enumerates the exact payload: project/board/column, status, priority, dates, assignees, tags, parent/subtasks, Markdown description, attachments, time entries and comments. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling weeek_list_tasks, which returns many tasks rather than one full card.

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 implies the fetch-one-task use case through its 'one task' scoping and the note that attachment ids feed into weeek_get_attachment, but it never explicitly states when to call this versus weeek_list_tasks or weeek_context, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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