get_all_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses a notable reliability quirk: 'Status and assignee filters are re-applied locally because the API's own filtering is unreliable for some combinations.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that prevents an agent from being surprised by inconsistent filtering. The read-only nature is only implied by 'List,' but the key caveat is covered.

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 with no filler: the first states the core action and scope, and the second adds the critical filtering caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and the one critical behavioral caveat. It does not explain output shape or pagination, but 'List tasks' gives a reasonable baseline expectation, making this a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description's filter caveat largely restates the status parameter's own 'applied again locally' note and does not add meaningful new parameter-level semantics beyond that.

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 states a specific verb–resource pair ('List tasks') and defines the scope precisely as 'across every project the account can see.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_task and get_tasks, which appear to be single-task or project-scoped, without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 cross-project scope implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs a global task listing across all visible projects. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as pointing to get_tasks or search_tasks for narrower queries, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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