gid_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tasks are queried and can include completed ones, but it does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or if there are any side effects. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) or include a brief note on output.

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 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not thorough context. It lacks details on return format (list of tasks? task details?) and does not address pagination or error conditions. Still, it is minimally complete for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value. It reiterates the 'done' parameter (including completed tasks) but adds nothing beyond the schema for 'node' or 'graphPath'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries tasks and shows nodes with pending or all tasks. It uses specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource 'tasks'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gid_task_update or gid_complete, which have related but distinct purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gid_task_update for updating tasks). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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