get_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and subtask inclusion but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all tasks') and immediately adds key optional features. Every word earns its place with zero 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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral aspects like whether it's safe to call repeatedly. The high parameter count and lack of structured metadata require more descriptive context than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions 'filtering by status' and 'including subtasks' which map to the 'status' and 'withSubtasks' parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all tasks from Task Master'), specifying optional filtering by status and inclusion of subtasks. It distinguishes from 'get_task' (singular) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-like tools like 'list_tags' or 'models'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions optional filtering but doesn't indicate when filtering is appropriate or compare to other task-related tools like 'get_task' (singular) or 'next_task'.

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