Metis — Get Tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly (querying) and mentions optional filters and a default limit. However, it lacks details on pagination (e.g., offset/cursor support), ordering, and any potential errors. The output schema exists, so return format is covered.

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 highly concise: one summary line followed by a structured list of parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence is relevant and adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 simple query tool with 4 optional parameters, an existing output schema, and no required fields, the description adequately covers the filtering behavior. It lacks information on sorting order or default ordering, but the tool appears straightforward. Overall, it is comprehensive enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so for all four params: status (with allowed values), project_id, owner, and limit (with default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default values. Minor ambiguity: description says '' for status means all, but default is 'open', which is clear enough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('tasks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and delete_task. It states that the tool queries tasks from a SQLite database with optional filters, which is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies this is the primary task listing tool via the phrase 'Query tasks from the SQLite database', but it does not explicitly specify when to use it versus other search or memory tools (e.g., search_memory, list_recent_sessions) or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned.

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