get_tasks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the transparent chunking into 10-id groups and parallel fan-out for 11-50 IDs, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose and limit, second explains the internal chunking behavior. It is front-loaded, every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

For a simple batch-fetch tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: constraints, internal behavior, and purpose. It doesn't mention return format or error handling, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (the schema already mentions the Capsule limit and splitting). Thus, the description adds no extra value for parameters.

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: 'Batch-fetch up to 50 tasks by ID.' It specifies the verb (batch-fetch), resource (tasks), and key constraints (by ID, limit 50). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_task' (single task) and 'list_tasks' (list without IDs).

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 explains the use case (batch-fetch by ID) and even details internal behavior for different ID counts. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to infer appropriate usage. Minor room for improvement.

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