get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description aligns with these but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of rate limits, required permissions, or return 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, concise sentence (15 words) that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It mentions the returned fields (assignee, status, timestamp). However, it could note whether the result is a list or single task, and slightly more context about 'AI-generated' would be helpful.

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%; both parameters (video_id, save_dir) are already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema.

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 the resource 'AI-generated action items (tasks) from a Loom video', and lists included fields (assignee, status, timestamp). It distinguishes from sibling task tools like create_task, update_task, delete_task, etc.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other task-related siblings (e.g., create_task, approve_task, respond_to_task). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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