tasks_by_stage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and does not mention pagination, sorting defaults, read-only nature, potential side effects, or any operational constraints beyond what the schema already shows. The schema does include some behavioral hints (e.g., pagination step 50, default sort), but the description adds no extra 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, concise sentence: 'Получить задачи конкретной канбан-стадии проекта (GROUP_ID + STAGE_ID)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key parameter hints. There is zero wasted words or redundant content, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description offers only the barest purpose. It does not explain what the response looks like, how to interpret the returned data, or the relationship to related tools like project_stages. The schema covers parameter details but not the broader context needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and limitations.

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 schema provides a description for every parameter (100% coverage), including group_id and stage_id, along with a filter example and pagination hints. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no additional explanation of parameter relationships or formats that would elevate the score.

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's purpose: obtaining tasks of a specific kanban stage of a project, with the required parameters GROUP_ID and STAGE_ID. It specifies a verb ('get'), a resource ('tasks'), and a specific scoping (by stage), which distinguishes it from generic task list tools like tasks_list or tasks_my. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools such as project_stages or tasks_list. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and parameter schema, which is insufficient.

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