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 does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — the response is "very large" — which warns the agent about context cost, and "raw API response" signals unstructured/verbose output. It omits auth requirements and error behavior, but for a read-only fetch those are minor.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the critical warning plus the routing condition are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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, and the description does characterize the return (full raw API response) plus its size, so an agent knows what it is getting. It could say a bit more about what "technical fields" encompasses, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail about id beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline.

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+resource ("Get the FULL, raw API response for a task") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task by naming what the lighter tool lacks. An agent can tell which of the two task-fetching tools to pick without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit gating: "Only use if you specifically need technical fields, custom field values, or deep task metadata not available in get_task." This gives both the when-to-use condition and the alternative tool to prefer otherwise.

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