get_completed_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation ('view'), the data is permanent/archival ('permanent archive'), tasks persist even after workspace removal, and it provides chronological history. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the core behavior adequately.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value: first states the core function, second explains archival nature, third gives usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and has zero wasted words.

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 read tool with one parameter (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description provides good context about the archival nature and persistence of data. It could mention the return format or pagination, but given the low complexity, it's reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter 'order' with its enum values and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('view chronological history') and resource ('ALL completed tasks'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's a 'permanent archive separate from the visible structure' and that tasks remain even after removal from the workspace.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for reviewing what you've accomplished over time'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like get_current_task or get_stack_overview).

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