amulen_my_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real value: default state filtering behavior, sort order ('soonest first' by due date), and the meta.next_offset pagination contract — none of which the annotations express.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact key: value list of parameters and a closing note on sort order and pagination. Every sentence carries information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only filtered-list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, defaults, sort order, and pagination cues. The main gap is undocumented limit/offset parameters, but the pagination hint partially compensates.

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 carries the full burden, and it documents four of six parameters with real semantics: estado (enumerated values plus default), project_slug (limit to one project), q (searches title/description), and vencidas (due date already passed, mapping to fecha_fin). limit and offset are not explained, though offset is hinted at via the meta.next_offset pagination note.

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 and resource (list tasks) plus a clear scope: 'assigned to me across all projects and boards, in a single call.' The 'assigned to me' qualifier implicitly separates it from amulen_list_tasks, but no sibling is actually named, so differentiation is somewhat inferred rather than explicit.

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 gives useful filter context (default estado of TO DO + DOING, project_slug to narrow, q for text search, vencidas for overdue) which implies when to use each filter. However, it never says when to pick this tool over amulen_list_tasks or amulen_get_task, so the primary alternative-selection guidance is missing.

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