tasks_overload

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as READ-ONLY, providing a clear safety signal in the absence of annotations. However, it does not disclose the return format (e.g., list of user IDs, names, counts) and leaves ambiguous how multi-project arrays are handled—whether counts are aggregated or per project. This is a partial disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 line in Russian that front-loads the READ-ONLY safety label and succinctly conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description carries the full burden but fails to describe what the tool returns (e.g., performer names, counts) or how it handles multiple projects. The core purpose is clear, but the missing behavioral context (aggregation, output shape) makes it incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'N' and 'В процессе' maps to threshold and stage_match, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. No compensation needed.

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 identifies performers with an overload of in-progress tasks exceeding a threshold (N) per project(s). The phrase 'исполнители с перегрузкой' explicitly names the resource (performers) and the condition, distinguishing it from siblings like tasks_in_progress or tasks_by_stage.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_in_progress or tasks_stale. The READ-ONLY prefix is a safety hint, but there is no explicit context for choosing this tool over others, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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