view_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the output format (markdown with IDs, titles, status, parent, body, subtasks), error handling for bad references (stubs instead of failures), and the separator between blocks. This exceeds the bare minimum.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences detail the output format without unnecessary verbosity. A slight improvement could be merging some redundant phrasing, but overall it is concise and effective.

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 simple input schema (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output format, error handling, and usage context. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to misinterpret how to invoke or interpret the tool.

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?

The description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'task_refs' by stating 'by IDs', clarifying that the array elements are task identifiers. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though more detail on ID format could be provided.

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 'View tasks by IDs as trimmed markdown', specifying both the verb and the resource. It distinguishes this read operation from siblings like create_task or edit_task by its focus on viewing, and further clarifies its use case by advising 'Use this instead of reading task files from disk'.

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 clear context: use this tool to view tasks by their IDs. It includes a directive to use it instead of reading from disk, but does not explicitly compare to list_tasks or other viewing alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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