nofuss_overview

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: counts stay complete when list coverage is byte-limited, 'omitted means not requested, never zero', no ancestor-tag expansion, no priority judgment, and no notes/notifications. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot infer from the structured fields.

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 scope statement is front-loaded, which is good, but the remainder is a compressed run-on of jargon-dense clauses ('excluding project roots', 'excluding native Completed/Dropped descendant task statuses') that takes real effort to parse. Not wasteful in content, but the structure impedes quick comprehension.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description still cues the key returned fields (next_review_at, review_due, work_state). For a one-parameter read tool it covers what's needed, though the boundary between 'counts' and 'compact project list' could be slightly clearer.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter, and it does: waiting_tag_ids takes 1–20 exact IDs matching any native task tag, and its presence adds full-scope waiting counts plus compact task IDs, while omission means 'not requested, never zero'. This meaning is entirely absent from the schema.

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 resource and scope: 'Workload overview in one fresh read: unfinished Inbox roots and all active library projects.' The description also names the sibling tools used for the next step ('drill down using nofuss_query active library and nofuss_get project trees'), so an agent can differentiate it from its siblings. It falls short of 5 only because the dense jargon ('work_state', 'full-scope counts') partially obscures the plain 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?

It gives clear routing context: this is the broad overview, and nofuss_query/nofuss_get are the drill-down tools for deeper coverage. However, it never states an explicit when-not-to-use or the condition that should send the agent straight to a sibling instead of here.

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