List Completed Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that filtering is optional; it says nothing about pagination, default time window, or result ordering 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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose and the filter scope front-loaded; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a query tool with three completely undocumented parameters and date strings of unspecified format, the description leaves real ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely maps its three parameters to 'project' and 'completion time range'. It never clarifies the date string format, inclusive/exclusive bounds, or whether project_ids accepts multiple projects, so the description partially but not fully compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (completed tasks) plus scope of optional filters. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like dida365_list_undone_tasks and dida365_get_project_tasks by the 'completed' qualifier, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 mention of optional project and time-range filtering implies when the filters matter, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling tools (e.g., list_undone_tasks or filter_tasks) that an agent should pick instead.

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