tasks_updates

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool uses a recent tail approach and is efficient, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if it has any side effects. It also does not mention authorization requirements or rate limits. The behavioral description is decent but incomplete.

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 very short (two sentences in Russian) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides useful information, though the translation may lose some nuance. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains why this tool exists (avoid timeout) and contrasts with the member task list. It covers the core functionality for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 50%, but the description does not add meaning to either parameter. The 'deep' parameter already has a description in the schema ("Дочитать треды, а не последнюю реплику"), and 'days' is only in the schema with default and range. The description does not explain how these parameters affect behavior beyond the schema, so it adds little value.

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 that the tool shows updates in own tasks ("Что шевелится в СВОИХ задачах") and mentions new ones, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_list (list all tasks) and task_get (single task). The phrase 'за окно' (over a window) is a bit vague but overall the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: it goes by the recent tail rather than the full list of own member tasks to avoid timeout. It also states it is cheap ('Дёшево') because the last reply already comes in recent. This helps an agent choose this tool over alternatives like tasks_list.

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