tasks_assigned_to_me

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: read-only, sorting by due_date, include_completed behavior, best-effort profile handling with _skipped_profiles. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotence; description enriches with concrete 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 dense but informative. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It front-loads the core purpose and then details parameters and return format.

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?

Given the complexity (two sources, merging, profile handling) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description covers return format, error handling (_skipped_profiles), and routing hints. It is complete for an AI 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 coverage is 0%, so description bears full burden. It explains include_completed (default false), limit (implicitly), and profiles (fan-out across tenants, best-effort skipping). Each parameter's effect is described.

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 it is a cross-source view merging Microsoft To Do and Planner tasks, with sorting and source tags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like todo_tasks and planner_tasks.

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 explains when to use the tool for cross-source listing and describes profile fan-out. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context and sibling tool names imply differentiation.

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