get_view_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read operation (implying safety), but nothing is said about pagination behavior, whether relationships/filtering are applied, how many tasks can be returned, or whether viewing permissions gate the results. For a data-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 fluff. It's brief and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral context; given the low information content, the conciseness reflects under-specification more than careful editing.

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 has a pagination parameter (page) and requires a view_id, but the description doesn't clarify pagination semantics (0-indexed is in the schema, but the relationship between pages and result ordering isn't explained). No output schema exists to describe the return shape. For a tool with two parameters and no behavioral notes, the description should compensate more.

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 100% — both view_id and page have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema since it just restates that it gets tasks in a view, which maps to the view_id parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get tasks visible in a specific view' uses a specific verb+resource (get tasks in a view). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_tasks, get_filtered_team_tasks, or get_view. The purpose is clear but there's no scoping distinction that would help an agent decide between this and other task-listing tools.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With many sibling tools (get_tasks, get_filtered_team_tasks, get_chat_view_comments), the description gives no indication of when this tool is preferred over alternatives. The reference to 'a specific view' implies it requires a view_id, but doesn't clarify the relationship to get_view or get_workspace_views.

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