get_all_tasks_in_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not mention status filtering, scope semantics, edge cases, or response behavior. Without annotations, this is a notable 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 sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the phrasing 'group/personal tasks' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, an output schema exists to cover return values, so the major missing pieces are parameter semantics and precise scope. The optional status parameter is entirely undocumented, and zgid semantics are only vaguely implied. The description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain 'zgid' or 'status'. The phrase 'group/personal tasks' hints that zgid identifies a group or personal context, but it does not clarify valid values, defaults, or how status affects the result.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('all tasks'), and a scope ('in a group/personal tasks'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_specific_task and get_all_groups. However, the phrase 'group/personal tasks' is somewhat ambiguous about whether personal tasks are a separate category or a special group.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: this tool lists all tasks, while get_specific_task retrieves one task. There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over others, nor any exclusion guidance, but the intended use is reasonably inferable.

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