get_my_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey useful behavior: filtering to active tasks, scoping to the current user, and returning results by priority. However, it does not disclose the response format, pagination behavior, whether an empty result is possible, or any authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and ordering with no redundant words. Every element earns its place, and the most important information appears first.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is returned, whose tasks, and the ordering. It does not specify the output schema or pagination details, but the tool's complexity is low and no output schema exists, so these are minor gaps rather than critical ones.

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 only parameter, max_results, is fully documented in the schema with a description, default value, minimum, and maximum. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no extra semantic value for parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('active tasks assigned to the current user'), and an ordering constraint ('by priority descending'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tasks (broader search) and get_task_details (single task lookup), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it is for the current user's active tasks, ordered by priority. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_tasks or get_task_details, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage guidance is implied by the scope, not stated.

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