get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond those annotations: the CalDAV ordering guarantee, the pagination envelope shape (count, offset, limit, has_more), and the list of fields per task. This is useful behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone cannot provide.

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 structure is clear and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, a scoping sentence, a compact Args block, and a Returns block. Every element earns its place. The only minor redundancy is the task-field enumeration in Returns, which overlaps with the existing output schema, but it is brief and aids understanding.

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 read-only paginated list tool with three optional parameters, the description is complete: it covers ordering, pagination semantics, parameter constraints, the response envelope, and how to discover list IDs. Annotations carry the safety profile and the output schema carries field shapes, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter documentation and fully delivers: list_id gets its default plus a pointer to list_task_lists for discovery, limit gets a range (1-500) and default, offset gets its pagination purpose and default. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema properties, which only name types and defaults.

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 and resource ('Get tasks from a task list') and adds a distinguishing scope note ('Returns all tasks in the list, ordered as stored in CalDAV'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_task (single task) and list_task_lists (discovering list IDs), which the description explicitly references.

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 gives helpful context for one sibling ('Use list_task_lists to find IDs') and explains the pagination workflow. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use this tool or when to prefer get_task instead — the read-all-vs-read-one decision is left implicit rather than stated as an exclusion.

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