get_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the read operation and filters but does not detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. The description is adequate but lacks depth needed for full transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the main function and provides some cross-tool guidance. However, it does not explain pagination (page parameter), return format, or clarify the mutual exclusivity of listId and listName. For a tool with 17 parameters, more completeness would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about name-based lookup but does not significantly elaborate on the many filter parameters beyond grouping them as 'optional filters.' The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

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 it gets tasks from a ClickUp list with optional filters. It also highlights a key differentiator: direct name-based lookup without needing the list ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools that require IDs or create lists.

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 usage guidance by mentioning name-based lookup as an alternative to using list IDs, and suggests creating the list if it doesn't exist using specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_task or create_bulk_tasks.

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