get_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the underlying Capsule API limit of 10 per request, the transparent splitting for larger batches, parallel fan-out, and that the caller sees merged results. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand performance and consistency implications. 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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary behavior (batch-fetch up to 50 tasks) and then provides the important edge-case detail about splitting. It is neither too long nor verbose, with each clause earning its place. It could be slightly more structured with a bullet or two, but the current format is efficient and clear.

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's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: batch limit, splitting behavior, and network round-trip implications. The annotations already provide safety context. The description does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not explicitly required for this simple read operation. It is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds depth by explaining the 10-id chunking behavior in relation to the 'ids' parameter, which is beyond what the schema says. It also mentions the 'embed' parameter's purpose implicitly through the schema, but the description reinforces the batch context. Since schema coverage is high, a 3 is baseline, but the added chunking detail justifies a 4.

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 fetches up to 50 tasks by ID, using a specific verb ('batch-fetch') and resource ('tasks'). It distinguishes itself from get_task (which likely fetches a single task) by emphasizing the batch capability. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it loses a point for not being as explicit as possible.

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 behavior for different batch sizes (1-10 vs 11-50) and mentions the splitting mechanism, giving the agent clear context on what to expect. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_task for single fetch), but the batch emphasis implies the use case. The lack of explicit exclusions means it's a 4, not a 5.

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