get_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context (data is parsed from Tasks.md, results carry overdue flags), but never states that this is a read-only operation, how parsing failures are surfaced, or how the optional filter affects behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the source and the overdue-flag behavior come first. Efficient, though the terseness is partly what leaves the filter unexplained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and for a simple one-param read tool the description is close to adequate. It falls short because the only parameter is undocumented and the parsing/read semantics of the Tasks.md source are unstated.

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?

One parameter ('filter') with 0% schema description coverage and no mention anywhere in the description. The agent cannot tell whether filter accepts a status, a date, a section name, or free text, which is a real gap for a tool whose sole knob is this filter.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (structured tasks) plus the source (Tasks.md) and a derived field (overdue flags). It distinguishes itself from add_task, list_task_sections, and the note-oriented siblings. Not a 5 only because 'structured tasks' is slightly vague about output shape, though the output schema covers that.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. It does not say how this differs from list_task_sections or when a caller should prefer this over that sibling, leaving the agent to infer routing from names alone.

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