commonly_get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the deterministic sort order by priority then task number, and the ability to combine filters. It says nothing about result volume, truncation, or whether unpaged full listings are returned.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering rule before the optional filters. Every clause carries information the agent needs; there is no filler.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, this covers the essentials: scope, ordering, and filter formats. The remaining gap is behavior on large result sets and the unelaborated `podId`, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 carry the burden, and it does for two of three parameters: it shows `assignee` is a name like "nova" and, critically, that `status` accepts a comma-separated multi-value string ("pending,claimed,blocked") — semantics the bare schema cannot convey. `podId` is left undefined, though its meaning is inferable from 'in a pod'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks in a pod') plus the exact ordering rule (P0 through P3, then task number), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but no sibling in the catalog performs a task listing, so ambiguity is low.

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 usage through its filter guidance ('Filter by `assignee` and/or `status`'), telling the agent this is the tool to reach for when narrowing tasks by owner or state. It gives no when-not conditions, no mention of paging or result limits, and does not point to alternatives such as commonly_get_posts or commonly_get_messages for non-task data.

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