List planning Tasks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds a useful constraint ('scheduled requires a date') but leaves 'authoritative planning view' undefined and says nothing about filtering, ordering, or response structure, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a necessary caveat about the 'scheduled' view. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with an 8-value enum and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what distinguishes this 'planning view' from the regular task list, nor does it clarify semantics of views like 'overdue' or 'unplanned'. Annotations cover safety but not domain meaning, leaving a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'scheduled requires a date', leaving the other seven enum values (today, tomorrow, someday, future, overdue, unplanned, no_due_date) unexplained and the date format/behavior unspecified. This is minimal compensation for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Tasks') with a qualifier ('in an authoritative planning view'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like personal_os_list_tasks. It also specifies 'active Tasks', narrowing the scope further.

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 this is the planning-specific list tool via 'authoritative planning view', but does not explicitly state when to use it over personal_os_list_tasks or personal_os_list_planning_items. It provides a conditional usage rule ('scheduled requires a date'), which is useful but not a full usage guide.

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