lookup_task_types

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

No annotations exist, and the description only states it retrieves task types with optional filtering. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, performance implications, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous text.

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 simple, optional-filter lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. However, it could mention default behavior (e.g., returns all types if no filter) or hint at the output shape to improve completeness.

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 single parameter 'projectId' is not described in the schema (0% coverage), but the description's phrase 'optionally filtered by project' adds semantic context about its purpose. However, it lacks details on data type, format, or valid values, leaving gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('task types'), and mentions optional filtering by project. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling lookup tools, the resource name itself is distinctive enough.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on when to include or omit the optional projectId filter. The description lacks any contextual advice for correct invocation.

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