get_my_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'query' is client-side filtered (important for result expectations), and 'subtasks' default is inverted from search_tasks (documenting a deliberate behavioral difference). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence wrapper note, and a tight Args list covering all 8 parameters without fluff. Each line earns its place and the structure aids readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, relation to search_tasks, and every parameter with enough detail. No prerequisites or missing behaviors are apparent for this read-only task query tool.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. The Args section explains every parameter meaningfully: date formats (ISO or Unix millis), 0-indexed page, include_closed default, and the subtasks inversion. This is far beyond what the schema titles alone provide.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Get tasks assigned to the current user across all lists.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_tasks (general search) and get_list_tasks (single list). The 'Convenience wrapper around search_tasks' further clarifies its niche.

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 explicitly names search_tasks as the alternative and explains the difference (automatic user resolution), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., 'use search_tasks if you need to specify another user'), so it stops short of a full 5.

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