planner_get_task

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-content context ("including description and checklist") but does not mention permissions, missing-task behavior, or whether checklist/description may be absent.

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 with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the notable returned fields efficiently.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits task_id semantics and does not clarify use relative to list/get alternatives, which are the main gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single required parameter task_id is undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining task_id format, where to obtain it, or any constraints, leaving only the parameter name to carry meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get a Planner task," and adds what is returned ("description and checklist"). It implicitly distinguishes Planner tasks from Todo tasks, but does not explicitly differentiate this retrieval tool from siblings such as planner_list_tasks or todo_get_task.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus planner_list_tasks, planner_my_tasks, or todo_get_task. The word "Get" implies single-task retrieval, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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