get_today_completed_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get', 'view'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what defines 'completed' (e.g., marked done today vs. completed earlier). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, though 'view today's accomplishments' is slightly redundant with the first part. It avoids unnecessary fluff and efficiently communicates the tool's intent in two concise phrases.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details that would be helpful without annotations, such as return format or completion criteria. For a simple read tool, it's passable but not comprehensive.

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 schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying temporal filtering ('today'), which isn't reflected in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add meaningful semantic context.

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's purpose: 'Get tasks completed today' specifies the verb (get) and resource (tasks) with a temporal filter (completed today). It distinguishes from siblings like get_flagged_tasks or get_inbox_tasks by focusing on completion status and timeframe. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_custom_perspective_tasks which might also filter by date.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like filter_tasks or get_custom_perspective_tasks that might offer similar functionality. The phrase 'view today's accomplishments' is motivational but doesn't add practical usage context.

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