get_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate a read-only list operation and the available filter dimensions, but it omits details such as pagination behavior, ordering, or whether the response contains only summary fields or full task objects.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the two filter dimensions. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple three-parameter list tool with fully documented schema, this description is mostly complete: it states the project scope and the available filters. Some context is still missing—such as whether results are paginated, how returned tasks are ordered, and how this compares to related siblings—but the core invocation path is clear.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the status enum and default values. The description merely restates the status and assignee filtering, adding no new semantic detail such as exact-match behavior for assignee_email or how null defaults are handled.

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 ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and clearly scopes the operation to 'inside one project' with optional status/assignee filters. This distinguishes it from project-agnostic siblings like get_all_tasks and get_tasks_by_priority, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 the tool is for retrieving tasks from a single project, optionally filtered by status or assignee. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_all_tasks, get_tasks_by_status, or get_overdue_tasks, and it does not state any exclusions.

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