Get Tasks For Section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral detail: 'Returns minimal fields by default — use opt_fields.' This informs the agent about the default response shape and how to request more fields. However, it doesn't clarify pagination behavior despite saying 'List all tasks,' leaving a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core action; the second provides an essential prerequisite and a usage tip. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, the prerequisite for the required parameter, and a hint about controlling returned fields. With rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and a 100% schema-described parameter set, this is adequate. Minor omission: no explicit mention of pagination despite saying 'List all tasks,' but the schema documents limit/offset.

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 all four parameters (section_gid, limit, offset, opt_fields) are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the default return fields and advising the use of opt_fields, which enhances the semantics of that parameter. It also reiterates how to obtain section_gid, though that's already in the schema.

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 the action ('List all tasks') and the resource ('a specific project section'), distinguishing it from related tools like asana_get_tasks_for_project and asana_get_tasks_for_tag. It also references asana_get_project_sections as a prerequisite, which reinforces the specific use case.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use asana_get_project_sections to get section GIDs.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives such as asana_get_tasks_for_project or asana_search_tasks. This gives clear context for the required parameter but lacks exclusions.

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