get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, effectively standing in for a missing output schema. It says nothing about not-found behavior or error responses, which is the main remaining gap for a lookup tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field enumeration is efficient. A few terms (energy, domains, plan) are cryptic without surrounding context, keeping it just short of a 5.

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-entity read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The missing pieces are the meaning/format of the required id and not-found behavior, both minor for a read operation already annotated as safe.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. The phrase 'Одна задача' hints that the id selects the task, but nothing clarifies whether it is a task ID, a slug, or composite. Baseline 3 is the most this earns given the schema carries no 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 resource and scope: one task in full, and enumerates the fields it returns (text, priority, deadline, energy, domains, project, links, plan). The singular 'Одна задача' implicitly contrasts with the plural list_tasks sibling, so an agent can tell them apart, though the differentiation is not stated outright.

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?

Usage is only implied: retrieving the complete detail of a single task. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_tasks, nor any note about what happens when the id does not exist. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing guidance.

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