GTD: Next Tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the selection logic (priority 3 OR due tomorrow), which is key behavioral insight. However, it does not mention ordering, whether completed tasks are excluded, or any other hidden behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 primary purpose immediately, and the second adds specifics and GTD context. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the selection criteria and the GTD rationale. It is slightly incomplete in not stating ordering or treatment of completed tasks, but the simplicity and sibling context make it adequate.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds conceptual meaning by explaining what the returned tasks represent, which is sufficient given no parameters exist.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'tasks', and specific selection criteria 'medium priority (3) or due tomorrow'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tasks_due_tomorrow (only due tomorrow) and get_tasks_by_priority (only priority).

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 GTD methodology reference implies the primary use case for next-action lists, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The criteria themselves separate it from other task-retrieval tools, but direct usage guidance is lacking.

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