get_connect_tasks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the operation itself and does not describe what is returned or any behavioral constraints such as required connector existence, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to communicating the operation and target resource.

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 simple read-only operation with fully described parameters and safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, the agent receives no detail about the shape of the returned tasks or potential edge cases, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is retrieved.

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 100%, so the parameters name, cluster, and connectId are already documented. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the fact that tasks belong to a connector, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get tasks for a connector'. This is not a tautology and distinguishes the tool from connector-level tools like get_connect_by_name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related task operations like get_connect_task_restart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions conditions for use nor points to sibling tools such as get_connect_task_restart or get_connect_configs, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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