checkvist_get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns 'raw JSON' and the 'complete JSON data structure', but does not disclose potential behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or response size limits. This is useful but not extensive, warranting a mid-range score.

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?

The description consists of just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every part adds value with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing safety context, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the output format. It lacks explicit details about response structure or potential pagination, but for a simple read tool, the description is sufficiently 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with clear descriptions ('checklist_id' and 'with_notes'). The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'all tasks' and 'complete JSON data structure', so it does not elevate beyond the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Get all tasks from a checklist'), the resource ('all tasks from a checklist'), and the output format ('raw JSON'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'checkvist_get_tasks_summary', which serves a different purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use checkvist_get_tasks_summary instead for easier reading. Only use this when you need the complete JSON data structure.' This clearly names an alternative and specifies the condition for choosing this tool.

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