tasks_in_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the stage is found automatically by name, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or default sorting, leaving gaps.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. It is a model of conciseness.

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 6 params and no output schema, the description provides the core shortcut context but lacks information about return results, default behaviors, and usage boundaries. The schema covers parameter details, but the overall description is minimal for a tool with moderate complexity.

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%, so description is not required to repeat params. It does add context for in_progress_match by explaining the auto-detection mechanism, but other parameters (order, start, filter) are only handled by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns tasks from the 'In progress' stage of a project, and adds that it's a shortcut with automatic stage lookup. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), though the name implies the action.

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 'shortcut' phrasing implies when to use this tool (for 'In progress' tasks with automatic stage detection), but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given. Users infer that a stage-based shortcut is preferable, but no sibling tools are named.

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