scheduler_query_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 communicates a search/read behavior and defines the scope (cards plus checklist tasks/sub-tasks), but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, explain default board scoping when boardId is omitted, or mention return/limit behavior.

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 one front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource, then gives a compact list of criteria. It contains no filler, but the long flat enumeration could be broken into a clearer structure for easier scanning, so it is not quite a 5.

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 10-parameter query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core search dimensions well but omits important contextual details such as the default all-boards scope, the limit parameter, and what a successful result looks like. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a useful synthesized grouping of criteria (e.g., 'cardId/taskId substring', 'labels (with matchMode any/all)'), but it does not meaningfully add information beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Search and filter cards ... across the Kanban board' and enumerates the searchable criteria. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool mcp_kanban_query_tasks, so it loses the top point.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should use this tool when it needs to find cards or checklist tasks matching search/filter criteria. There are no explicit exclusions, alternative recommendations, or guidance about when a different sibling tool would be more appropriate, so it only meets the 'implied' bar.

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