tasks_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, what happens with excluded tasks, or any side effects or edge cases. The name suggests retrieval, but the description offers little concrete behavioral detail.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being a noun fragment rather than a complete functional statement. There is no useful structure, and the brevity sacrifices essential 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. Missing context includes the meaning of include_excluded, how 'path' should be specified, and how this tool relates to all_tasks. The description does not sufficiently cover the tool's usage context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It weakly maps 'path' to 'note', but does not explain that path is the note's path, nor does it clarify the meaning of include_excluded or its default behavior. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw parameter names.

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 'Taches d'une note donnee' identifies the resource as tasks belonging to a specific note, which gives some scope and distinguishes it from all_tasks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not clarify whether it returns tasks directly or performs some other action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as all_tasks or search_text. The phrase 'd'une note donnee' implies a per-note scope, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools are provided.

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