Get All Tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns 'undone tasks' and only from 'every active project', which are important behavioral constraints. This goes beyond simply restating the name. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate and useful.

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 short sentences: the first states the core functionality with specifics, the second provides a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

The tool is low complexity: no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward data retrieval operation. The description clearly defines what is retrieved (undone tasks) and the scope (active projects), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without missing critical information. The sibling list further clarifies its role as a broad 'get all' tool.

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 tool has exactly 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description neither needs nor adds parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the tool's behavior.

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 identifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'all undone tasks', and the scope 'across every active project'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'undone' and 'every active project', which differentiates it from filtered variants like overdue or due-date-specific tools, and from completed/trashed task retrievers.

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 second sentence states it is 'Useful for building a full picture of your task list', providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use get_tasks_due_today for tasks due soon'). The context is clear but no exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4.

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