query_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully describe behavior. It states that the tool queries active tasks (implying read-only) and mentions multi-value filter flexibility, but does not address authentication details, rate limits, or edge cases like empty results. Some value is added but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences plus a categorized bullet line. It front-loads the key action and capabilities. However, the '[Auth: V1 + V2]' and '[Category: Query & Search]' are cryptic and may not be helpful to an agent without further context.

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 complexity (33 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not clarify what 'active tasks' means, the expected date format, how regex works, or sorting behavior. The description leaves significant gaps for such a feature-rich tool.

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?

With 33 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate. It only briefly mentions 'fine-grained filters, date/hour ranges' and the multi-value behavior, but does not explain the meaning or format of most parameters (e.g., date formats, priority, tag_mode). This is insufficient for a tool with many parameters.

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 'Query', the resource 'active tasks', and key capabilities: 'fine-grained filters, date/hour ranges, and grep-like matching'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_all_tasks and get_project_tasks by implying this tool offers more advanced querying.

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 lists related tools (query_notes, query_agenda, get_all_tasks, get_project_tasks) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied but not clarified with when-not conditions.

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