get_anytime

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and the use of AppleScript API, but does not explicitly indicate read-only behavior, potential permissions, side effects, or any operational constraints. For a tool with no annotations, this falls short of adequate 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 that immediately identifies the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant details, making it optimally front-loaded and 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?

For a simple no-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and the underlying API. The output schema covers return values, and the absence of parameters eliminates misuse risk. It could mention read-only semantics, but that is implicit and not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (an empty object). With no parameters to explain, the description adds no additional semantics, which is appropriate. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to document beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Anytime tasks', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_today and get_upcoming by the specific task scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives, relying on the resource name to imply differentiation.

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 the tool is for retrieving Anytime tasks, making its usage context obvious from the name and resource. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or conditions. Since it is a zero-parameter getter, the ambiguity is low but still present.

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