get_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as error handling, authorization requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that lists the return contents without filler. Every word earns its place and the structure makes the purpose immediately clear.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read operation with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what will be returned, and the schema explains how to identify the task. No critical information 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the task_id parameter is documented as 'Identifier returned by create_task.' The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'task' and enumerates the payload components: active criteria, verifier profile, evidence, and current assessment. This clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_tasks tool.

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 read-oriented description implies use when a specific task's full details are needed, and the required task_id parameter reinforces this. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over list_tasks or other siblings, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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