todo_get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that notes and checklist items are included in the response — information not in any structured field. However, it says nothing about error behavior for missing tasks or auth requirements implied by both list_ref and task_id.

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?

A single efficient sentence with zero padding, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple getter, though the brevity comes at the cost of leaving the two required parameters unexplained.

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 tool with two required, fully undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify how list_ref and task_id combine to identify a task. It discloses the returned content but leaves parameter meaning entirely unaddressed, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 definition carries the full burden of explaining 'task_id' and 'list_ref', and the description says nothing about either. An agent cannot tell from this text whether list_ref is a list ID, a display name, or a path, nor whether task_id is global or list-scoped. The only semantic hint is that both are required together to identify the task.

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 and resource ('Get one To Do task') and adds scope detail ('with notes and checklist items'), which distinguishes it from todo_list_tasks and planner_get_task. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it replaces, but the singular 'one' plus the returned sub-resources makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage only: 'Get one' suggests use when a single known task is needed rather than enumerating, which nudges the agent toward todo_list_tasks for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note that both list_ref and task_id are required to locate the task, and no pointer to todo_update_task once the task is fetched.

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