get_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that task names may not be unique and that listName helps disambiguate, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then lists parameter combinations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage without redundancy.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers parameter usage well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'detailed information' returns) and doesn't leverage context from siblings like 'get_tasks' to clarify scope.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter combinations and preferences (e.g., taskId is 'preferred'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed information about a specific task', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tasks' (which likely lists multiple tasks), but the focus on a 'specific task' implies this distinction.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it outlines two valid parameter combinations (taskId alone preferred, or taskName + optional listName) and warns about task name uniqueness issues. This directly addresses when to use specific parameters, though it doesn't compare to alternatives like 'get_tasks'.

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