filter_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral detail of optional subtask-tree expansion, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, default limits, or how multiple filters combine, which would be valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for its role as a high-level summary, given the detailed schema provides specifics.

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?

Despite the complex schema with 44 parameters, the description gives no contextual guidance on how to combine filters, whether filters are AND/OR, or how the tool relates to sibling tools. It also doesn't explain pagination or output mode behavior, which are important for correct invocation. The description is too sparse to fully support an agent in using this complex tool effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into categories (status, dates, projects, tags, search) which helps orient the agent, but does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of subtask expansion aligns with showSubtasks and maxSubtaskDepth, but adds little extra.

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 performs advanced filtering on tasks by multiple criteria such as status, dates, projects, tags, and search. This distinguishes it from simpler sibling tools like get_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'filtering' and resource 'tasks' are specific, and the mention of subtask-tree expansion adds clarity.

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 or count_tasks. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether it is intended for complex queries while simpler tools exist for basic listing. The word 'advanced' implies a use case but is not explicit guidance.

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