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 adds useful context beyond the input schema: it explains the dot-notation for task IDs and describes how 'includeSubtasks' affects response structure (hierarchical vs. simplified objects). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but data-retrieval tool.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Both sentences add value: the first explains task ID format, and the second details response variations based on 'includeSubtasks.' There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers key behavioral aspects like response formatting but omits details on permissions, error cases, or output structure. Without an output schema, more guidance on return values would be beneficial, but it's adequate for basic usage.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the dot-notation format for task IDs and the effect of 'includeSubtasks' on response objects, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Get tasks for a goal.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tasks for a goal'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_tasks' or 'remove_tasks' beyond the basic verb distinction, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'add_tasks' for adding tasks or 'complete_task_status' for updating status) or clarify scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied only by the action 'Get,' with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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