list_my_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses default filtering behavior, the exact semantics of limit=0, the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for the deadline window, and the fact that state filtering uses exact state codes. This gives the agent a solid behavioral model beyond the raw 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 two tight, front-loaded sentences. The first sentences establishes purpose and scope; the second packs in defaults, filters, and limit semantics without any redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema exists, return values are already covered. The description also covers all parameters, defaults, and edge cases like limit=0. Minor gaps remain: exact valid state codes are not enumerated, stage_id and project_id are not further elaborated, and no mention of sorting/pagination, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 0%, so every parameter must be explained in the description. The description explicitly mentions all 7 parameters: include_done, project_id, stage_id, state, due_after, due_before, and limit. It adds meaningful details, such as limit=0 meaning 'no limit' and due_after/due_before expecting YYYY-MM-DD. This more than compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the caller's Odoo tasks (tasks they are assigned to)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and update_task (mutation). The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it explains the default exclusion of terminal states (done/cancelled/closed), how include_done=true overrides that, and lists the optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use the tool, but the intended use case is communicated effectively.

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