get_tasks

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'pure read' behavior, explains ordering (priority then created_at newest-first), auth requirements (agent token, only own tasks), and documents the default filter value (status='all'). It does not disclose pagination behavior beyond the limit param, and error codes are listed. Very strong for an unannotated tool, though it could mention whether pagination/cursor exists.

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 structured with clear labeled sections (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors). Every sentence earns its place with informative content. It is comprehensive yet tightly organized, with no fluff or repetition. Excellent use of section headers for scannability.

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 5-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description is quite thorough. It documents return shape (tasks, count, agent, role, filter with per-task fields listed), auth model, ordering, defaults, and error codes. Given the rich parameter set and the description's good coverage, it's close to complete. Minor gaps: no pagination explanation and limit behavior is only in the schema, but these are adequately covered by schema descriptions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds context by clarifying the meaning of role enum values ('assigned' = tasks for you, 'posted' = tasks you created) which echoes the schema. It reinforces the default status='all' behavior. The description adds marginal value beyond the thorough schema but does not introduce new parameter information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Query the tasks you are involved with.' It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming get_task (single task by id) and get_standup (team-wide rollup), and distinguishes roles ('assigned' vs 'posted'). This is a specific and unambiguous purpose definition.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: assignees triaging their queue (role='assigned') and requesters checking on dispatched work (role='posted'). It also names alternatives (get_task for single task, get_standup for team-wide rollup) and explains auth scoping (only your own tasks visible). This is exemplary usage guidance with both usage cases and exclusions.

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