get_tasks

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 mentions that tasks include 'energy_required level (high/medium/low) and preferred_time slot,' which adds some context about the data structure. However, it doesn't describe critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential errors, or how the data is sourced (e.g., real-time vs. cached). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds useful details about task attributes. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains what the tool returns and the structure of tasks, which is helpful. However, with no annotations and an output schema present, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling). It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information.

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: 'Return the current task list from todo.json' specifies the verb (return) and resource (task list from a specific file). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tasks rather than readiness scores, health summaries, schedules, or logs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer get_tasks over other sibling tools like get_health_summary or propose_schedule, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual triggers. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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