get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: comment ordering and limiting via comment_limit, todo truncation with todos_truncated and todos_note, and attachment results limited to id and filename. This gives the agent an accurate picture of response behavior without needing to guess.

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 front-loaded with the operation and then uses scannable bullets to enumerate return categories. Every line adds distinct information about task details, time tracking, todos, comments, or attachments. There is no filler or 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?

The description is complete for correct invocation: it specifies the required parameter format, the optional limit behavior, the return categories, and the truncation signals. The read-only annotation covers safety, and the existence of an output schema further reduces the burden. Nothing necessary for correct use 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that task_id is an internal Productive identifier with a concrete example, and by explaining that comment_limit controls how many most recent comments are returned. It avoids merely repeating the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed task information by its internal task ID.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists many tasks) and get_task_history (which returns history rather than current task details). The example ID anchors the exact input expected.

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 usage context is implied: call this tool when you already have an internal task ID and need full details for that single task. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using quick_search or list_tasks to first locate the task ID. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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