get_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 doesn't mention whether 'retrieve' limits to a certain user's tasks, whether results are sorted in a particular order, whether deleted/hidden tasks are included, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a thin description.

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 concise at a single sentence. It's efficient and front-loaded, though it arguably errs on the side of being under-specified rather than genuinely focused.

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?

While the tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is too sparse for the available context. No output schema means the description or schema should explain return format. No annotations means behavioral expectations need to come from the description. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more completeness is expected.

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 all three parameters (page, status, itemsPerPage) are documented in the schema. The description adds marginally by implying tasks can be retrieved with filtering/pagination, but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 says 'Retrieve tasks from RogerRoger' which names the verb (retrieve) and resource (tasks) clearly. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like create_task or provide scope nuances beyond basic retrieval. It barely adds value over the tool name itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention pagination use cases, status filtering scenarios, or when to prefer this over other task-related tools. Without exclusions or when-not guidance, the agent gets minimal direction on appropriate usage context.

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