get_task_subtasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation is performed but does not mention side effects, rate limits, authorization requirements, or whether it returns immediate subtasks only. The minimal description fails to add context beyond the basic action.

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 very concise (one sentence) and directly states the purpose. It avoids fluff but could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points or examples). Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but lacks details such as the structure of the returned subtask list (e.g., whether it contains full task objects) or any sorting/filtering behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described), so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; for example, it doesn't clarify that projectId is the parent project or that taskId is the task for which subtasks are retrieved. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's action ('get list of subtasks') and the target resource ('specified task'), using the verb '取得' (get) and specifying 'サブタスク一覧' (list of subtasks). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_task (which retrieves a single task) and get_tasks (which lists tasks under a project).

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, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., needing valid project and task IDs). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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