filter_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced task filtering' but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (format, pagination), or any rate limits. The phrase 'unlimited perspective combinations' suggests flexibility but lacks concrete behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Advanced task filtering') and key capabilities. It avoids unnecessary words while conveying the tool's scope, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating primary from secondary features.

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 complex filtering tool with 31 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, how multiple filters combine (AND/OR logic), default behaviors, or error conditions. Without annotations and with rich parameter schema, the description should provide more operational context to complement the technical specifications.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 31 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by listing some filter categories (status, dates, projects, tags, search) but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose as 'Advanced task filtering' with 'unlimited perspective combinations', specifying the resource (tasks) and key filtering dimensions (status, dates, projects, tags, search). It distinguishes from simpler sibling tools like get_flagged_tasks or get_inbox_tasks by emphasizing comprehensive filtering capabilities, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tasks_by_tag or get_custom_perspective_tasks. It mentions 'unlimited perspective combinations' which implies broad applicability but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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