get_tasks_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains date filtering semantics, states that tasks without a due date never match either filter, and details how emoji markers are parsed and stripped from text into dedicated fields. This goes well beyond a simple 'list tasks' description.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose, parameters, special date behavior, parsing behavior, and output item shape are each given compact, useful sentences. There is no filler or redundantly repeated schema information.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is nearly self-contained. It covers scope, all relevant filters, date edge cases, marker parsing, and the return item structure. The only minor omission is the `vault` parameter, but the description is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for status values, date format and inclusivity, and folder/tag filtering. The only notable gap is the `vault` parameter, which is not explicitly explained in the description, though the phrase 'across the vault' and the parameter name provide some context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return tasks from across the vault.' The term 'tasks' is distinct from all sibling note, attachment, and vault tools, and the mention of Tasks-plugin emoji markers further clarifies that this is a task-oriented retrieval tool.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: retrieving tasks by status, folder, tag, or due date across the vault. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools appear to be task-specific, so the usage context is sufficient.

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