get_all_task_results

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (latest to oldest), inclusion of intermediate drafts, and pagination behavior. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or any constraints beyond pagination.

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 concise: a single-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section is brief.

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?

The description explains pagination and ordering, and mentions 'canvas content' in returns. However, it does not clarify differences from sibling tools like 'get_task_result' or describe edge cases (e.g., no results). Output schema exists but is not shown, so evaluation is limited.

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%, but the description includes an Args block that explains each parameter: task_id is a UUID, page_number is 0-indexed, page_size is 1-100. This adds crucial meaning beyond the plain schema types, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Get all Tendem task results including intermediate drafts, from latest to oldest.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (task results), and scope (all, including drafts). Although it shares a server with 'get_task_result' (singular), the plural name and mention of 'all' and 'intermediate drafts' distinguishes it, but explicit differentiation is missing.

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 like 'get_task_result' or other siblings. It does not mention use cases or prerequisites.

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