get_child_tasks

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

The description notes the tool is 'experimental' and warns that recursive=True 'can be expensive', disclosing behavioral traits beyond the schema. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so effectively, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or permissions.

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 three tightly written sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and experimental nature, providing usage guidance, and detailing return types and parameter option. No redundancy or filler.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains return types and the recursive option. It omits debug but that is minor. Experimental status is noted. Overall, it covers the essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 67% (2 of 3 params described). The description adds value by explaining recursive's purpose ('Set recursive=True for deep hierarchy') and contextualizing parent_id. However, the debug parameter is left unexplained, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 child tasks of a specific parent task or project, differentiating it from siblings like get_tasks. It also specifies it returns both tasks and sub-projects, leaving no ambiguity about the resource and action.

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 says 'Use when you need to see subtasks within a project or parent task', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., get_tasks for broader queries) or state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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