get_project_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the action. It does not mention return format, whether tasks of all statuses are included, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The description adds no transparency beyond the tool's name.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, fulfilling the conciseness requirement perfectly.

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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the need for at least one project identifier, or how filtering parameters combine. The ambiguity between project_id, project_name, and workspace_path leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 parameter names and basic descriptions exist. However, the relationship between project_id, project_name, and workspace_path is unclear, and the description does not clarify whether these are alternatives or required fields. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema, and the schema itself is ambiguous about parameter interplay.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all tasks') with a scope ('for a project'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_my_tasks or get_task, so it misses the distinction that would warrant a 5.

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 over alternatives such as get_my_tasks or get_project_dashboard, nor any clarification on how the various project identifiers (project_id, project_name, workspace_path) relate. The description provides no context for choosing this tool or what distinguishes it from others.

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