Teamwork: my work

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool is safe to call. The description adds value by clarifying the scope (tasks assigned to the API key's user) and the filtering behavior (due today, overdue, this week). It does not disclose pagination or response structure, but for a read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the added context is sufficient.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary resource ('tasks assigned to the API key's user') and then specifies the relevant time filters. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it efficiently scannable for an agent.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the main filtering dimensions. It does not explain the distinction between 'thisweek' and 'within7' or how pagination works, but these are partially inferable from parameter names and the schema enum. The tool is simple enough that the description, combined with annotations, provides adequate context for correct invocation.

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 low (only filter has a description), but the tool description partially compensates by enumerating due-date categories that map to filter enum values. However, page, pageSize, and includeCompleted are not explained in the description, leaving their semantics to the schema (which lacks descriptions). The description adds some meaning for filter but not for the other three parameters, so it does not fully bridge the gap.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: listing tasks assigned to the API key's user, with explicit mention of due-date categories (today, overdue, this week). This distinguishes it from general task lists like list_tasks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'assigned' and resource 'tasks' are specific, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need tasks for the current user with due-date filtering) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. It does not mention list_tasks or get_task, and it does not clarify scenarios like 'use this for personal task overview' vs 'use list_tasks for all tasks'. This is a gap for an agent deciding between siblings.

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