get_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, default result limits, whether archived tasks are excluded by default, or authentication/permission needs. For a 5-parameter query tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence that is fully front-loaded with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal 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?

A five-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to cover return shape, pagination, and filtering behavior. The one-liner leaves all of that unaddressed, so the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, page, archived, pageSize, projectId) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as filter syntax or default-value behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') plus scope ('within a project'), so an agent knows this is a read operation scoped to a project. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings or note how it relates to any task-filtering alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about when to prefer other sibling tools such as get_time_entries. The single sentence implies usage but states nothing explicitly.

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