get_my_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a basic read action, omitting whether it returns tasks regardless of status, whether status filters apply by default, or whether 'my' means the current agent. This creates ambiguity about behavior and could lead to incorrect expectations.

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 that conveys the core function with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description gives the basic function, but gaps remain: it does not clarify the 'my' vs 'any agent' ambiguity, default status behavior, or what the output set looks like. No annotations or output schema exist, so the description should do more, but it is not severely incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented, but the descriptions in the schema are minimal ('Agent ID', 'Filter by status'). The description adds context that agent_id is the assignee, but does not explain valid status values or default behavior. This is baseline 3, with modest added 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 verb (Get), resource (all tasks), and qualifier (assigned to an agent), which distinguishes it from get_task (single task) and get_project_tasks (by project). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or clarify whether 'my' refers to the calling agent or any specified agent.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to get tasks for a given agent. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_project_tasks or get_task, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. A more concrete 'use this when you need tasks by assignee' would be clearer.

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