taskwarrior_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, repeatable read operations. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies the tool returns 'detailed information' and supports multiple output formats (markdown/JSON), which clarifies behavioral traits not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement, usage guideline, parameter explanation, and examples. Each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with key information. Minor room for improvement in brevity, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single-task retrieval), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters, and output formats adequately, though it could benefit from more explicit sibling tool differentiation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'params' input containing 'task_id' and 'response_format', with examples for usage. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, such as clarifying that 'task_id' can be an ID or UUID and describing the output format options. However, it doesn't fully detail all parameter nuances, so it meets the baseline for partial compensation.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific task' and 'view all attributes and annotations of a single task.' This specifies the verb ('get/view') and resource ('task'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'taskwarrior_list' or 'taskwarrior_summary' beyond focusing on a single 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?

The description provides clear context: 'Use this tool to view all attributes and annotations of a single task.' This implies usage for detailed, individual task retrieval rather than listing or summarizing multiple tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'taskwarrior_list' for multiple tasks.

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