Tasks by Priority

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded with the action, and includes the necessary priority value mapping. No redundant information is present.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (tasks), the filter (priority), and the value meanings. However, the absence of an output schema or behavioral notes (e.g., read-only confirmation) leaves minor gaps, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter (`priority`) with the same text as the description, so the description adds no new semantic information. The schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 tool's action ('Get all tasks') and the specific filtering criterion ('by a specific priority level'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tasks_due_today or get_all_tasks. The priority values are explicitly defined, providing unambiguous purpose.

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 states the function but does not provide guidance on when to choose it over other task-listing tools (e.g., get_all_tasks, filter_tasks). There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusions, so the usage context is only implied.

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