study_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the full safety profile. The description's addition of 'local' corroborates the closed-world hint, but it says nothing about return ordering, pagination, or whether archived tasks require explicit status selection.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, scope, and filter are all packed in without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essential action is conveyed and annotations cover safety. Gaps remain around return content (what a task record includes) and how omitted status behaves, which an agent would have to infer.

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 carries some weight, and it does identify the single parameter as an optional status filter. However, it does not enumerate or explain the valid values (todo/doing/done/archived) or clarify the default behavior when no status is supplied — the enum lives only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read local study tasks', with a scoping qualifier ('local') and an optional filter ('by status'). This distinguishes it reasonably well from the write siblings (study_task_create, study_task_update), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent read tools like study_search or study_agenda.

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?

'Optionally filtered by status' implies the use case (listing tasks, narrowing by state), but no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite several sibling read tools (study_search, study_agenda, study_status) that could overlap.

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