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

Annotations already confirm readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds important operational behavior: pagination via has_more/cursor, hiding cursor fields from the user, and displaying the `display` field verbatim in a code block. This is meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then moves to actionable rules in short imperative sentences. Every sentence earns its place by covering either purpose, sequencing, output handling, or pagination, with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values; it appropriately focuses on usage, pagination, and user-facing presentation. Given the tool's complexity and available schema, the description gives everything an agent needs to call and handle it correctly.

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 cursor parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description references calling again with cursor for pagination but adds no new syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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: 'Returns the current items in the selected project,' and clarifies that items are tasks. It differentiates from siblings by naming cherry_pick, cherry_unpick, and complete_items, so an agent can distinguish it from other tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides explicit ordering rules ('ALWAYS call cherry_pick before doing any work on items — NEVER do work without picking first') and a confirmation requirement before complete_items. Also states how to handle pagination and user-facing output, leaving little to inference.

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