get_ready_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 describes what the tool does but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, criteria, and scope without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a retrieval operation that likely returns complex task data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ready for execution' means in practice, what data is returned, or any limitations of the retrieval. For a tool with 2 parameters and likely complex output, more context is needed.

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 already fully documents both parameters with their types, enums, and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('tasks that are ready for execution'), with specific criteria ('no pending dependencies or all dependencies completed') and scope ('within a specified scope'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_tasks' or 'get_project' by focusing on readiness state rather than general search or project retrieval.

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 when needing ready tasks within a project or task list scope, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tasks' or 'analyze_dependencies'. It provides context about scope but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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