get-task-details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the taskId is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get extended task details') and specifies included data ('description and checklist'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for its function, though it could be slightly more structured with usage hints.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and data returned but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. For a read operation with no complex schema, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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, with the single parameter 'taskId' documented as 'The task ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('extended task details'), specifying what information is included ('description and checklist'). It distinguishes from the simpler 'get-task' sibling by mentioning 'extended' details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update-task-details' or other siblings beyond the verb difference.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-task' (which likely returns basic details) or 'list-tasks' (for multiple tasks). The description implies usage for retrieving detailed task information but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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