get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool returns task details in dictionary format, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining the parameter, and describing the return format. It's well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate labeled section.

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 (single parameter, read operation), the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), and the description's coverage of key aspects (purpose, parameter meaning, return format), this is reasonably complete. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context that annotations would normally provide, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation.

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 description adds meaningful semantic context for the single parameter: it specifies that task_id is a 'Notion 页面 ID' (Notion page ID) and mentions it can be obtained from list_tasks results. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's basic string type, especially valuable given the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the ID format or validation rules.

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: '获取单个任务的完整详情' (get complete details of a single task). It specifies the verb (get) and resource (task details), distinguishing it from list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and get_subtasks (which focuses on subtasks). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_note or get_overview, which are different resource types.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning that task_id can be obtained from list_tasks results, suggesting this tool is used after listing tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_subtasks (for subtask details) or get_overview (for summary information), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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