get_tasks

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 the operation as a listing, which implies read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, permissions, or any constraints such as requiring an open project. This is adequate for a read operation but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second adds valuable execution-order context, and the Args section cleanly documents the parameter. No fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and a practical usage warning. Minor gaps: it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be loaded) or any path format restrictions, but these are unlikely to impede correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the 'Args' section explicitly defines 'path' as 'Project file or directory,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type. This is concise and informative, though it could have specified whether a file or directory is preferred in different scenarios.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('controller tasks'), and adds the attributes of timing and programs each task runs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pous or get_routines, which deal with code blocks rather than task scheduling.

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 provides a clear use case: to check task assignment before assuming execution order, and explicitly mentions jitter. While it doesn't name alternative tools or say when not to use it, the guidance is actionable and contextually relevant, giving the agent a reason to invoke this tool.

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