Get Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully convey that this is a safe, non-destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., success/failure conditions, throttling, or effect on underlying data). Given the declarations, the description's minimalism is acceptable but adds no extra value.

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 sentence of six words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word is essential.

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 read operation on a specific task, the description together with the schema and annotations provides a complete picture. The output schema (not shown but exists) would detail the returned fields. The only minor gap is no mention of error conditions (e.g., task not found), but the overall context is sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (user_google_email, task_list_id, task_id), each with clear explanations. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 is precise: 'Get details of a specific task.' It clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (details of a task), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and manage_task (which modifies tasks).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks, get_task_list, or manage_task. No explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. For a tool that is one of many task-related tools, this omission reduces its usability.

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