planner_my_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cross-plan/signed-in-user scoping, but says nothing about the default exclusion of completed tasks or result volume/pagination behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope qualifier in the same clause. Nothing extraneous and nothing to trim.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers identity, scope, and safety adequately. The only real gap is the unmentioned include_completed filter, which is small but agent-relevant.

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?

The single parameter include_completed has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Its default of false (completed tasks hidden by default) is a meaningful behavioral consequence the agent must discover from the schema alone, and the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Planner tasks') plus precise scope ('assigned to the signed-in user across all plans'), which implicitly separates it from planner_list_tasks and planner_get_task. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top mark.

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 is implied by the phrasing 'assigned to the signed-in user' — an agent can infer this is the 'what's on my plate' query. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer planner_list_tasks, and no mention of the include_completed filter as a selection consideration.

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