task_get_all_task_definitions

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves all task definitions, which is straightforward. However, it does not mention potential impacts (e.g., performance with large datasets, pagination, or read-only nature). The behavior is adequately transparent but not enriched beyond the obvious.

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 a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and clearly communicates the tool's function.

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 (no parameters, output schema present), the description is adequate. It tells exactly what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns all definitions without any filtering, but this is not critical.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 'Gets all task definitions' uses a clear verb and specifies the resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like task_get_task_by_id (single) and task_get_task_definition_for_tasktype (filtered). However, it lacks any additional clarifying details, 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 such as task_get_task_by_id or task_get_task_definition_for_tasktype. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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