get_custom_perspective_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool 'Supports hierarchical tree display of task relationships,' which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and a key feature (hierarchical display). No redundant information. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary but acceptable.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, enum for displayMode) and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case, differentiation from tags, and a key display feature. It does not describe the output structure, but the action is straightforward enough. The context signals indicate high schema coverage, so the description is adequate.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about perspective names being custom views (not tags), which enhances understanding of the required parameter perspectiveName. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning or interaction of other parameters like limit, displayMode, or showHierarchy beyond what the schema already describes.

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 tasks from a specific OmniFocus custom perspective by name.' It distinguishes the tool from tag-based tools like get_tasks_by_tag by explicitly noting that perspective names are custom views, not tags. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when user refers to perspective names like ... - these are custom views created in OmniFocus, NOT tags.' This helps the agent know when to invoke this tool over similar siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for non-perspective queries.

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