batch_get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'multiple tasks in a single call' conveys the batching behavior, but the description does not address partial failures, response shape, or how missing task numbers are handled. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple batch read.

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 three short, purposeful clauses with the main purpose front-loaded. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes either to selecting the tool or understanding how to invoke it efficiently.

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 straightforward batch read tool, the description plus fully documented schema give an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema means return formatting is not specified, but the phrase 'full details' provides a sufficient contract for a read operation, and no critical invocation details are missing.

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%, so the schema already documents taskNumbers, teamId, and projectId clearly, including the max 50 items and auto-from-session behavior. The description's 'Accepts an array of task numbers' only echoes the schema and adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond it.

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 and resource: 'Get full details of multiple tasks in a single call.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task by emphasizing the batch scope and efficiency, so an agent can immediately tell the two apart.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this tool when you need multiple task details, and it explicitly names the alternative with 'More efficient than calling get_task multiple times.' It does not spell out when not to use it, but the batching guidance is clear enough.

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