Flagged tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that—no mention of default hideCompleted behavior or that without a filter it returns all flagged tasks. It does not contradict 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 action. It contains no filler, though it could arguably include a note about the default hideCompleted behavior without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with only two optional parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate but sparse. It doesn't mention that without a project filter all flagged tasks are returned, or any limitations. The output schema exists, so return details are not required, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters already documented. The description's phrase 'optional project filtering' adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter description for projectFilter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('Get flagged tasks') and mentions optional project filtering, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like filter_tasks or get_tasks_by_tag, though the resource 'flagged tasks' is specific enough.

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. With many sibling tools offering overlapping task-listing capabilities (e.g., filter_tasks, get_forecast_tasks, get_inbox_tasks), the description leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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