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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does state 'Read-through' and 'Returns', indicating a read-only operation, and lists the returned fields. However, it does not mention potential caveats such as permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first phrase 'Read-through to PlanCrux task graph' immediately establishes the operation, and the second sentence adds essential detail. Every clause contributes value, with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the read-only nature, rich output schema, and fully described parameters, the description provides adequate coverage of core behavior and returned fields. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling task-related tools, but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward read operation.

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 modest context by stating that results are 'filtered by status and priority', but it does not explain the limit parameter or provide any semantics beyond what the schema already offers. This is acceptable but not additive.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and specifies the resource ('PlanCrux task graph') and scope ('assigned to or relevant to the calling agent'). It also mentions filtering by status/priority and the included fields (stage progress, blockers, linked artefact counts), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_context or get_checkpoints.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve tasks relevant to the calling agent, with optional status and priority filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use case is sufficiently unambiguous for an agent to select it appropriately.

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