get_my_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by state and project_id, and a default limit, but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), authentication requirements, pagination beyond the limit, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section that efficiently documents parameters. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each part serves a clear function, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner for readability.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, error handling) and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly.

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 description adds meaningful context for all three parameters: it explains that 'state' filters by task state with examples (e.g., '01_in_progress'), 'project_id' filters by project ID, and 'limit' sets a maximum record count with a default of 20. Since schema description coverage is 0% (titles only provide basic labels like 'State'), the description compensates well by clarifying parameter purposes and providing an example for 'state', though it doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond defaults.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get tasks assigned to the current user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('tasks assigned to the current user'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_my_tickets' or 'get_my_quotations' that follow similar patterns for other resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions, or compare it to similar sibling tools like 'get_my_tickets' or 'search_read' that might also retrieve task-related data. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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