get_forecast_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving tasks from a 'forecast perspective' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose ('Get tasks from OmniFocus forecast perspective') and adds necessary context ('due/deferred tasks in date range'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or operational constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for full understanding.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (days, hideCompleted, includeDeferredOnly). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'date range' and 'due/deferred tasks', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' and resource 'tasks from OmniFocus forecast perspective', specifying it retrieves 'due/deferred tasks in date range'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_flagged_tasks or get_inbox_tasks by focusing on forecast perspective, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage for retrieving forecast tasks within a date range, which suggests when to use it (e.g., for planning upcoming work). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives like get_custom_perspective_tasks for other views. Usage is contextually implied but not detailed.

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