list_omnifocus_tasks

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

The description offers minimal behavioral information beyond the action. There is no mention of whether it lists all tasks, requires prior selection of a project, or any side effects. Given no annotations exist, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits.

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 very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of necessary details. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified for effective tool use.

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?

The tool is parameterless and has no output schema, but the description does not provide enough context about what tasks are returned (e.g., all tasks, only incomplete ones) or any prerequisites. Sibling tools exist that could have been distinguished. The description is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline score of 4 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 'Lists tasks from OmniFocus' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (tasks from OmniFocus). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_omnifocus_tasks' or 'list_omnifocus_projects', which reduces clarity in context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_omnifocus_tasks' for filtered queries or 'list_omnifocus_projects' for project-level listing. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate usage.

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