tasks_completed_period

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

With no annotations, the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: tasks can be found via CLOSED_DATE or, for tasks in final kanban stages, via CHANGED_DATE. It also clarifies the primary filter semantics. It does not mention return format or side effects, but the core matching trap is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the main purpose, then adds the fallback nuance. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 having 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description captures the core behavioral model and the key fallback logic. The schema covers parameter-level details such as pagination, ordering, and filter restrictions, so the description is sufficiently complete for a list/reporting 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all 9 parameters, including detailed descriptions of defaults, constraints, and the stage_closed_fallback mechanism. The description's mention of CLOSED_DATE/CHANGED_DATE largely restates schema content without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 identifies the tool as returning completed tasks for a period and specifies the primary date filter (CLOSED_DATE) plus a fallback by CHANGED_DATE for final kanban stages. This distinguishes it from sibling period tools like tasks_new_period and tasks_in_progress.

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 implies usage for completed-task reporting with a period filter, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. No direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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