get_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions that task_id is 'preferred' (implied from schema) but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if multiple tasks match, error conditions, or response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be more structured. There's no wasted text, but it borders on being too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 1 parameter (a complex array structure), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Get tasks' returns, how to interpret the items array, error handling, or how this differs from similar retrieval tools in the sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It mentions 'task_id' and 'task_name' as identification methods, but doesn't explain the 'items' array structure, that both fields are optional within items, or the implications of using name versus ID. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully address the undocumented parameter complexity.

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 tasks') and resource ('from Todoist'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tasks_list' by implying retrieval of specific tasks rather than listing all tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools like 'get_completed_tasks'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning two ways to identify tasks (task_id or task_name), but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tasks_list' or 'get_completed_tasks'. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases is provided.

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