Get task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; changes nothing' is largely redundant. It does add value beyond structured data by disclosing the payload shape (comments and files are returned by default, and can be suppressed via fields), which matters for response size.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the projection option, then routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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, yet the description conveys the return shape (full task with comments and files, or a compact projection), which is exactly the gap it needs to fill. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with equivalent examples (the fields example is literally identical in schema and description). The description correctly frames the compact-vs-full tradeoff but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail the schema lacks.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a single task by ID') and explicit scope ('full details including comments and files'). It is immediately distinguishable from list_tasks, claim_next_task, and update_task named in the same paragraph.

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?

States the triggering condition ('when list_tasks gave you an id or you already hold one') and routes to the alternatives by name: list_tasks for board search, claim_next_task for pulling the next unit of work. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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