get_project_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists return fields, which is helpful, but does not mention pagination behavior (schema includes pageSize and pageNumber) or explicitly state it is a read-only operation. The claim 'Get all tasks' combined with default page size of 10 could mislead about output size, though not a strict contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, followed by a pragmatic sourcing hint. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 straightforward getter, the description covers return fields and projectId sourcing. However, it omits pagination semantics (given schema has pageSize/pageNumber) and does not distinguish usage from search_tasks. No output schema exists, so the listed fields mitigate that, but the ambiguity around 'all' vs pagination is a gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not restate parameter meanings. It adds a practical hint about sourcing projectId, which is a usage note rather than parameter semantics. This meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('all tasks (phases) for a project'), and enumerates the returned fields (task IDs, names, parent hierarchy, fixed-price status, billable defaults). It distinguishes from search_tasks implicitly by focusing on 'all tasks for a project' rather than searching, but does not explicitly contrast with it.

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 a useful hint on sourcing projectId ('from get_project or from time registrations'), giving practical context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over search_tasks or when not to use it, leaving the choice to inference.

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