get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns paginated results and supports filtering, ordering, subtasks, and custom fields. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid list_id) or any side effects. For a read tool, the core behavior is adequately covered, but additional detail would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence plus a concise usage guideline. It is front-loaded with the main action and each clause adds necessary information. No extraneous words or redundant details. Ideal length for a tool with many parameters.

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?

Despite the complexity (17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not mention the return format (e.g., list of task objects) or the response structure. It also lacks guidance on how to handle pagination correctly or what to expect from the date filters. For a tool of this complexity, the description should be more complete to compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100% with descriptions on all 17 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing the filtering capabilities (status, assignees, tags, date ranges, ordering, subtasks, custom fields) and noting pagination. This provides a quick overview, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline 3.

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 tool retrieves tasks in a specific List with rich filtering options. It enumerates filter types (status, assignees, tags, date ranges) and mentions ordering, subtasks, and custom-field filters. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task (single task) and get_subtasks (subtasks only).

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 ends with 'Use when you know which List the tasks live in,' providing explicit context for when to use this tool. It implies not to use it when the list is unknown, though it does not mention sibling tools like get_sprint_tasks or get_view_tasks as alternatives.

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