get_custom_perspective_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about hierarchical tree display and clarifies the nature of custom perspectives, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each serve clear purposes: the first establishes the core functionality and usage context, the second adds important behavioral context about hierarchical display. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good usage context and distinguishes from siblings, but leaves significant gaps in behavioral transparency (no mention of read/write nature, error handling, or response format). The combination of good purpose clarity and usage guidelines with incomplete behavioral disclosure results in a moderately complete description.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions hierarchical tree display (which maps to showHierarchy) and perspective names (which maps to perspectiveName), but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples beyond what's already in the schema 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 specific action ('Get tasks') from a specific resource ('OmniFocus custom perspective by name'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting these are 'custom views created in OmniFocus, NOT tags' (differentiating from get_tasks_by_tag). The verb+resource combination is precise 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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when user refers to perspective names like '今日工作安排', '今日复盘', '本周项目' etc.') and clarifies what NOT to use it for ('these are custom views... NOT tags'), effectively distinguishing it from alternatives like get_tasks_by_tag. This gives clear contextual boundaries for tool selection.

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