get_today_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: it includes overdue recurring tasks, which is not obvious from the name. It does not mention other behavioral aspects (e.g., whether tasks without due dates are included), but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get all tasks due today') and appends a clarifying clause. No redundant information.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's scope and a key edge case. It is sufficient for an agent to know what results to expect. The sibling context provides additional disambiguation, but the description itself is complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema is fully descriptive. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'tasks due today', with an explicit inclusion of 'overdue recurring tasks'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_upcoming_tasks (future tasks) and list_tasks (all tasks).

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 a use case for viewing today's actionable tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_upcoming_tasks or list_tasks. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the name and scope.

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