get_perspective_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'get tasks' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether results are filtered, sorted, or limited, nor any authorization requirements. The description adds little 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary function, the second provides crucial usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'tasks shown' means (e.g., all tasks visible in that perspective) nor what the output format is. For a straightforward tool, this is acceptable but could be expanded.

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% for the single parameter 'name', which is described as 'The perspective name'. The description does not add any extra meaning, e.g., case sensitivity, format, or how to find names. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for complete schema coverage with no additional detail.

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 tool retrieves tasks from a custom perspective. It explicitly distinguishes from built-in perspectives by naming them (Inbox, Forecast) and directing to dedicated tools, which differentiates it from siblings like get_inbox_tasks.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (custom perspectives) and when not to (built-in perspectives), even naming alternative tools. This is precise and helpful for agent decision-making.

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