get_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the tool as '[tier: readonly-owner]', signaling a safe read-only operation, and mentions the limit of 1000 IDs. It does not cover error behavior or pagination, but the key safety profile is clearly communicated.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The main action, limit, endpoint mapping, and tier are all included in a compact, front-loaded format. Every phrase adds value.

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 get-by-IDs tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral safety, and parameter semantics. It could elaborate on edge cases or response format, but the essential details are present.

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 has one parameter, taskIDs, with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that these are task/alert IDs and capping the count at 1000, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema type. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('task/alert records'), and a clear scope ('up to 1000 task IDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_tasks and other get_* tools that operate on different resources or retrieval modes.

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 phrase 'Get full task/alert records for up to 1000 task IDs' establishes a clear use case: when the caller has specific task IDs and needs complete records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Maps to POST /task/get' and tier information add context. Lacks explicit when-not guidance, so not a 5.

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