get_incomplete_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds value by specifying the scope (unfinished tasks with subtasks and sidequests) and the purpose ('shows remaining work'), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long, concise, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the basic return content (tasks, subtasks, sidequests) and purpose (remaining work), but omits details on the exact structure (e.g., flat list vs. nested) or any output fields. Given the lack of an output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none exist. It does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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'), resource ('unfinished tasks'), statuses included ('pending, in_progress, blocked'), and the inclusion of subtasks and sidequests. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_incomplete_subtasks or get_tasks_by_milestone by specifying the combined output.

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 implies when to use (need incomplete tasks with subtasks/sidequests) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or how to choose between this and similar tools like get_incomplete_subtasks_by_task or get_incomplete_items. The sibling list is large, but no comparative context is given.

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