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 some context beyond the input schema by mentioning pagination support and the return format ('Dictionary of tasks matching the provided filters'), but it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). The example of extra_filters provides behavioral insight but is limited.

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, starting with the core purpose. The example section is useful but slightly lengthens the text. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying optional parameters and providing filtering examples, though it could be more streamlined.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers key aspects like filtering, pagination, and optional parameters, but it could improve by addressing behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication, especially since no annotations are provided.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing filterable criteria (project, assignee, status) and noting that parameters are optional, but it doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. The example of extra_filters offers some semantic clarification, but overall, the description 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 as 'Get tasks with optional filtering and pagination,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_task' (singular), which might retrieve a single task, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'All parameters are optional - omit to fetch all tasks,' which suggests when to use default behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task' (singular) or 'quick_search,' and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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