get_tasks

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the note that source-specific parameters are strictly validated, which is useful, but it doesn't describe output format, pagination, or error behavior. The added value is modest and comparable to a typical read tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and contains no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With 14 params and no output schema, a brief description is somewhat insufficient. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list vs single object) or any additional behavior like default filters. The core read intent is clear, but an agent might want more context on expected response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions including conditional usage (e.g., 'forecast only', 'tag only'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating that parameters are validated per source. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Read tasks' and enumerates five distinct sources (inbox, flagged, forecast, tag, custom). This differentiates it from siblings like filter_tasks or get_task_by_id, which handle different retrieval modes.

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 gives direct instruction on how to select a view ('Use source to select the view') and highlights that source-specific parameters are validated. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand selection behavior.

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