get_completed_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination details beyond schema), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'filtering options' hints at functionality but lacks behavioral specifics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get completed tasks from Todoist'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key filtering capabilities.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not described). The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, missing contextual guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'filtering options', which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 completed tasks') and resource ('from Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_tasks' by specifying 'completed' tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other filtering tools like 'get_tasks_list'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tasks' or 'get_tasks_list'. It mentions 'filtering options' but doesn't specify when this tool is preferred over other task-retrieval methods, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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