Get Tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's read-only, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. It mentions scope but lacks operational details crucial for an agent.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and filtering logic. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use despite the concise purpose statement.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by assignee and room context, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or defaults beyond the schema's 'assignee' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'tasks' with scope 'assigned to you or in the room', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_messages' or 'get_notifications' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling comparison.

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 provides minimal context by mentioning 'assigned to you or in the room', but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_messages' or 'create_task', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks clear usage scenarios.

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