nofuss_query

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

Far exceeds the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive): it discloses default status/flag inclusion, AND-combination including flagged:false, projection reuse, depth defaults, exclusion of project roots and locally dropped work, include_completed semantics, that ancestors do not prune tasks, exact ordering (created_at ASC, nulls first, then ID), and live cursor semantics.

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?

It is front-loaded with scope and every clause carries information, but the dense, semicolon-chained fragments make it read like a spec dump rather than flowing guidance. Length is economical yet structure suffers 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?

For a complex 12-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers query semantics, defaults, filtering, ordering, and pagination well. Minor gaps remain around view/limit/fields behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: entity/scope, project_id (exact match), depth (descendants default vs direct), status, flagged, include_completed, sort order, and cursor usage are all given meaning. It leaves view, limit, and fields largely to the schema, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('Query tasks ... or projects') and enumerates the three scopes (inbox_roots, one exact project, library). It clearly distinguishes task vs project querying, though it never names the sibling tools (nofuss_get, nofuss_overview) it should be chosen over.

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?

Usage is implied through scope semantics (inbox_roots vs project_id vs library) and filter behavior, giving an agent enough to route by scenario. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as nofuss_get or nofuss_overview, so selection guidance is incomplete.

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