get-project-tasks-by-project

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get all project tasks' but omits details like read-only behavior, pagination, error handling for invalid project IDs, or ordering of results. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of the tool's runtime 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 extremely short at one sentence, but it fails to convey essential information like usage context or return value structure. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, lacking the substance needed to guide an agent.

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 that there are 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, error conditions, or required permissions. The agent would need to infer or experiment to use the tool correctly, indicating significant gaps.

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%, providing basic parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default parameter values or interaction effects (e.g., how fields and include_phases work together). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the fully self-documenting schema.

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 tool retrieves project tasks for a specific project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list-project-tasks, which might return all tasks without a project filter, potentially causing confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-project-tasks or get-project-tasks-by-phase. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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