get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description gives none — it doesn't mention pagination behavior, whether archived/closed tasks are included by default, rate limits, ordering defaults, or whether subtasks are excluded by default. Given the wide array of filter and boolean parameters, the description omits critical default-behavior information.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words ('Get tasks from a list with optional filters'). It's appropriately brief for a tool whose schema carries most of the parameter documentation. It's not verbose, though it could arguably front-load slightly more semantic useful information.

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?

This is a complex tool with 17 parameters and no output schema and no annotations. The one-sentence description is insufficient for such complexity. It doesn't explain default behaviors (are closed/archived tasks excluded by default? is pagination standard?), what ordering defaults apply, or how filters combine. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 94%, so the input schema documents nearly all parameters well. The description adds little beyond 'optional filters' as a general concept. Per the rubric, high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the description doesn't add meaningful parameter insight beyond the schema. The 6% uncovered portion is negligible.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get tasks from a list with optional filters'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_task (singular) and get_filtered_team_tasks by specifying it operates on a list scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state what distinguishes it from get_list or get_view_tasks, which also retrieve tasks for a list/scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't state what the default behavior is (e.g., are closed tasks excluded by default?), nor when one would prefer get_filtered_team_tasks or get_view_tasks. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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