List Undone Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that – it does not say what happens when the optional dates or project_ids are omitted, whether results are paginated, or what the default scope is.

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, and the scoping constraints follow the verb immediately. It is efficient, though there is little content to structure.

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 explained, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the definition is under-specified: date format, null-default behavior, and result set semantics (all undone tasks across projects vs. a bounded set) are all left to inference.

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 all three parameters default to null, yet the description only loosely maps to them ('date range' -> start_date/end_date, 'projects' -> project_ids) without specifying date string format, whether the range is inclusive, or what null/omitted means. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List undone tasks') with its scope ('within a date range, optionally filtered by projects'). The qualifier 'undone' usefully distinguishes it from the sibling get_completed_tasks, though it never names that sibling 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?

It states the filtering capability but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the overlapping siblings dida365_filter_tasks, dida365_get_project_tasks, or dida365_get_completed_tasks. The date-range emphasis is implied usage at best, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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