get_my_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations cannot: that descriptions are complete but envelope and valueless fields (0-counters, due_date=null, human_gate=false) are omitted by default, and how to get the untrimmed payload. This lean-by-default behavior is the key thing an agent needs to know and it is disclosed.

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 core purpose and its trigger conditions are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and every sentence carries information. The final enumeration of omitted envelope and valueless field names is somewhat dense but is the substance of the default-trimming disclosure.

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 7-parameter read tool with caching/delta semantics and no output schema, the description covers the default response shape, the way to get full items, and the fallback sibling. It leaves the delta/revision machinery entirely to the schema, which is defensible but is the main remaining 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates a couple of parameters (full=true for complete items, status_category for active work) but adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already carries (e.g. it never explains the delta/known_revision/snapshot_session interplay).

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('Get YOUR assigned tasks') and scopes it to the caller's own assignments, which distinguishes it from list_tasks and get_task. The parenthetical ACP Step 5 anchor and the note that get_task returns one card's full details give the agent enough to tell it apart from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It states explicit trigger points ('Use at session start and after completing tasks to pick up the next assignment') and an explicit alternative routing rule ('pass full=true for the complete items, or get_task for one card's full details'). The status_category filter is also framed by its purpose ('to focus on active work').

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