get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by disclosing that only the 50 most recent comments are included and that long text is truncated. These are exactly the kind of limits an agent needs before calling, though return-shape caveats like missing-task behavior are absent.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact parenthetical of return details. No redundant or filler text; every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so well (fields, description text, comment authors/dates, count limit, truncation). It stops short of covering error or not-found behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a task id. The description adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., how to obtain the id) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one task') and enumerates what is returned: all fields, description as text, and comments. It implicitly contrasts with list_tasks by emphasizing 'one task', but never names the sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

Use case is implied ('read one task'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_tasks or comment, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid task id. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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