Get Tasks For Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: tasks are direct members only, results span all sections, and the response uses minimal fields unless opt_fields is provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, the second gives sibling guidance, and the third explains the default field behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with detailed schema descriptions, the description covers the key gotchas: exclusion of subtasks, section coverage, and minimal return fields. It also provides sibling differentiation, making it sufficiently complete despite the absence of an output schema.

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 schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description is not required to add much. It does reinforce the use of opt_fields, but doesn't introduce meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states 'List all tasks in a project', using a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies scope with 'direct members only, not subtasks'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool asana_get_tasks_for_section.

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 an explicit alternative: 'For tasks in a specific section use asana_get_tasks_for_section', and sets clear boundaries by excluding subtasks and stating that results span sections. This helps the agent choose between related tools.

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