asana_user_queue

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: pagination behavior, bucketing by due date, per-project count aggregation, and the underlying /tasks?assignee= mechanism. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but each clause earns its place: it opens with the essential composite behavior, then explains pagination, bucketing, default user, permission caveats, and prototypical use cases. No filler or repetition of annotation facts.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the exact bucket structure (overdue / due_today / this_week / later / no_due) and the per-project count map. It also covers defaults, permissions, pagination limits, and the right mental model for selecting this tool over siblings, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for the user parameter by clarifying that teammate access is allowed despite the My Tasks restriction. It also contextualizes pagination and max_pages behavior against the capped search API, which helps the agent understand the practical effect of max_pages.

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?

States a specific composite purpose: one person's full incomplete queue, paginated, bucketed by due status, and with a per-project count map. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is NOT capped at 100 like the search API and that the PAT-owner-only restriction on My Tasks does not apply.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: default user is 'me', pass user=<gid> for a teammate, and it is 'the right call' for understanding what a person is working on and for hand-off reviews. It also clarifies when the My Tasks restriction would be a problem and how this tool avoids it.

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