get_custom_perspective_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it omits the one non-obvious behavior: with ignoreFocus defaulting to true the call clears Focus mode, mutating application state. It does disclose that hierarchy display is supported, but says nothing about read-only nature, result volume defaults, or pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the disambiguation, then a capability note. The 'etc.' after the examples is slightly loose but the overall size is appropriate for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what comes back (flat vs. hierarchical shape, whether completed tasks are included by default) and about the Focus-mode side effect. It is adequate for tool selection but thin for invocation expectations.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the perspectiveName-vs-tag caveat and the limit/showHierarchy interaction. The description adds only the example perspective names, which is a minor supplement rather than new semantic depth.

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 ('Get tasks from a specific OmniFocus custom perspective') and explicitly disambiguates the concept from tags, which is the most likely confusion given the sibling tool get_tasks_by_tag. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use this when user refers to perspective names like Today, Daily Review, This Week'. It clearly marks the when-to-use case and rules out tags, but never names the alternative tool (list_custom_perspectives for resolving IDs) even though the schema references it.

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