get_my_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it's a read operation (get) and the plural 'accounts' implies it aggregates across multiple Asana accounts. However, it doesn't describe the return format (output schema exists, partially covering this), whether completed tasks are excluded by default (though the include_completed param implies this), or any pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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?

A single efficient sentence that states the purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more descriptive about scope. Given the schema handles parameter details, this level of brevity is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it to explain what's returned. The tool is conceptually simple (get tasks) and the schema covers all 3 params fully. However, there's no mention of whether this returns only current tasks vs. historical ones, ordering, or how multiple accounts factor into the response shape, which would help an agent pick this over the many sibling task-related tools.

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% and the parameters have useful descriptions (limit, account with null semantics, include_completed). The description adds little beyond the schema - it doesn't elaborate on formats or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting the description just reinforces the account-scoping concept.

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 it gets assigned tasks from Asana accounts (specific verb+resource). It's distinct from siblings like get_my_commitments or get_my_follow_ups since it specifically targets Asana-assigned tasks, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those sibling tools by name.

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 implies the tool retrieves tasks assigned to the user, and the params add context (per-account limits, completed-task exclusion). However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like create_asana_task, complete_asana_task, or search_commitments, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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