Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the HTTP method and required OAuth scope, but does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact sentence that includes the endpoint and scopes without any unnecessary wording. Every element earns its place and it is immediately scannable.

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 straightforward two-parameter read operation, the endpoint, scope, and annotations provide most necessary context. However, the missing guidance about when to use this versus contacts_get_all_tasks leaves a small but relevant completeness gap, especially since there is no output schema to clarify expected returns.

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 100%, and both parameters are individually described, albeit minimally. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific operation: retrieving a single task via 'Get Task' and the exact endpoint path. It is distinguishable from siblings like contacts_get_all_tasks by the composite resource path, though it does not explicitly state that distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contacts_get_all_tasks or contacts_get_note. The endpoint implies retrieving one task by contactId and taskId, but the tool description does not state when it should be selected over related getters.

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