Filter tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the key non-mutating behavior. The description adds little beyond a feature list (e.g., 'offset paging') and does not disclose edge cases or side effects, but it does not contradict 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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loaded with 'Advanced task filtering'. It packs many meaningful feature categories into a compact overview, though it reads as a long laundry list and could be structured with examples or bullets for easier scanning.

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 the enormous 55-parameter schema with descriptions and a declared output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level map of capabilities. It doesn't include examples or common usage patterns, but the schema's per-parameter descriptions fill most gaps.

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%, with every parameter individually described. The tool description adds a high-level conceptual grouping—and/or/not clauses, countOnly, field projection, offset paging—but does not provide any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Advanced task filtering' of tasks, and enumerates the dimensions (status, dates, project, folder tree, tags, name/regex, note, repeat, estimate). It clearly distinguishes itself from simpler sibling getters via the word 'Advanced', though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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 use for complex or multi-dimensional filtering but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't route the agent to simpler siblings like get_inbox_tasks or get_flagged_tasks when advanced clauses aren't needed, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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