planner_my_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load: 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the scope is clarified as the cross-plan 'Assigned to me' view. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether completed tasks are included, which matters for a cross-plan aggregation tool.

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 with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-param read tool needs little more than scope. The only real gap is whether the result set is filtered by status or paginated across many plans.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly reflects that the tool takes no arguments.

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 Planner tasks') plus the scope ('assigned to me across all plans'), which implicitly separates it from planner_list_tasks. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring it from 'across all plans.'

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 parenthetical 'the Assigned to me view' implies the use case (my tasks, not a plan's tasks), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement. With planner_list_tasks in the sibling set, an explicit routing sentence would have earned a higher score.

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