get_child_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns that the tool is experimental and notes that recursive mode 'can be expensive.' This is helpful but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens with invalid parent IDs. The return format is implied but not fully described.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences covering purpose, use case, and key parameter behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and experimental warning, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's experimental nature and three parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core functionality and recursive option. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. Some missing aspects like error handling or performance considerations are minor 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?

The input schema covers 2 of 3 parameters (parent_id and recursive) with descriptions but misses debug. The description adds context by explaining that recursive=True fetches deep hierarchy and that the tool returns both tasks and sub-projects, enriching the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get child tasks of a specific parent task or project (experimental).' This specifies a verb (get), a resource (child tasks), and a constraint (of a specific parent), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tasks or get_all_tasks.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use when you need to see subtasks within a project or parent task.' It also details the recursive parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_tasks, which could also fetch tasks.

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