Dump database

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the database state is 'current' and the parameter descriptions disclose important behavioral details: completed/dropped tasks are capped at 50 per project and the report notes omissions. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The parameter descriptions carry the detailed behavioral information, which is appropriate placement. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description plus rich parameter descriptions cover the key behaviors (completion cap, recurring duplicate collapsing). It's slightly incomplete in not stating the overall scope of what 'current state' includes (e.g., projects, tasks, folders, tags), but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema's parameter descriptions are rich (explaining defaults, caps, and the recurring-duplicate collapse behavior). Baseline 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?

The description 'Gets the current state of your OmniFocus database' clearly identifies the tool as a read-only database dump operation. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_flagged_tasks or get_inbox_tasks by its broad scope, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need the full current state of the database, as opposed to specific filtered views. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like filter_tasks or search_items, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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