Get Subtasks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are limited to direct subtasks and return minimal fields by default. This is useful, though it doesn't detail pagination or error behaviors.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then states key constraints and usage tips. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with rich annotations and fully described schema parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: depth, nested recursion, and default vs. extended fields. No output schema exists, but the return type (list of subtasks) is clear from the description.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds little beyond the schema—'minimal fields by default' and 'use opt_fields' are already reflected in the opt_fields parameter description. It gives no additional parameter-level insight.

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 ('List') and resource ('direct subtasks of a task'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like get_tasks_for_project or get_tasks_for_section. The phrase 'direct subtasks' and 'one level deep' precisely defines scope.

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 usage guidance by explaining the one-level-depth limitation and instructing to call recursively for nested subtasks. It also advises using opt_fields for more fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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