Custom perspective tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful semantic distinction (custom perspectives vs tags) and mentions hierarchical tree display, but this largely overlaps with schema parameter descriptions and does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as error handling, truncation behavior, or response structure beyond what the schema already provides.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the when-to-use guidance, and the tree-display capability. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or repetition.

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 6 parameters all documented in the schema, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description adds the key use-case context and the critical distinction from tags. It is slightly incomplete in not pointing to list_custom_perspectives for discovering perspective names, but that is a minor gap given the rich schema.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of perspectiveName with examples and the 'NOT tags' distinction, but it does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond that. 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 states a clear verb+resource pair: 'Get tasks from a specific OmniFocus custom perspective by name.' It differentiates itself from tag-based tools by explicitly saying 'NOT tags' and providing concrete example perspective names, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from siblings like get_tasks_by_tag.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when user refers to perspective names like 'Today', 'Weekly Review', 'This Week' etc.' It also gives a when-not signal by clarifying these are not tags. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., get_tasks_by_tag or list_custom_perspectives), so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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