uisp_get_tasks_in_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Get' signals a read-only operation and 'currently' signals a point-in-time snapshot. However, it does not disclose scope, authentication expectations, or failure behavior, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement. Every word earns its place: 'number' clarifies the return type and 'currently in progress' defines the filter.

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 zero-parameter, read-only count tool, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, the object, and the return type. It would be stronger if it clarified the scope of 'tasks' (global vs. site-specific), but the absence of a site parameter makes the global interpretation reasonable.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter-documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters the schema does not define.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('tasks'), and output type ('number ... currently in progress'), making the function immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling uisp_list_tasks, but the count-vs-list distinction is apparent from the wording.

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 phrasing implies the tool is appropriate when a count of in-progress tasks is needed rather than a detailed task list, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Sibling tools such as uisp_list_tasks are not mentioned, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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