List Project 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 covered. The description adds the meaningful filtering behavior (only uncompleted tasks), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or volume limits for an open-world list call.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating scope before anything else. Nothing is wasted.

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 not be described, but the definition still omits the one required parameter's meaning and does not clarify its relationship to the overlapping siblings. For a read-only list tool that is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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% and the single required parameter project_id has no description in either the schema or the description. The description does not explain where the project_id comes from or its format, leaving the one input undocumented.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (tasks) plus a scope qualifier (all uncompleted, in a project), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-duplicate sibling dida365_list_undone_tasks, which appears to cover the same filtered set.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings dida365_get_completed_tasks and dida365_list_undone_tasks sitting right next to it. The agent must infer the boundary between this tool and list_undone_tasks on its own.

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