Forecast tasks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the forecast-scope context; richer behavioral nuances (e.g., 'Overdue tasks are always included', dateMode semantics) live in the schema parameter descriptions, not the tool description. No contradictions found.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the resource and the core filter in a compact parenthetical, which is exactly as concise as it needs to be.

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 description itself is minimal, but the input schema thoroughly documents every parameter, an output schema exists, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The only gap is the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing, but that's a usage-guidance concern rather than a completeness gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including defaults and edge cases. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tasks from OmniFocus forecast perspective'), and clarifies the scope with 'due/deferred tasks in date range'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_flagged_tasks or get_inbox_tasks, even without reading the schema.

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 the use case—retrieving forecast tasks—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like get_custom_perspective_tasks or get_today_completed_tasks. There is no 'when not to use' or mention of sibling tools.

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