everhour_get_tasks_for_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the endpoint and does not mention pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, response structure, or any side effects. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but there's no explicit assurance of safety or other behavioral traits.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point. It includes the essential action and resource without unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and front-loaded. The endpoint reference is a minor addition but doesn't hurt clarity.

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?

Despite having six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description remains very thin. It fails to mention pagination, filtering, or the relationship to sibling list tools, and it doesn't describe what the response looks like. The schema covers parameter definitions but doesn't provide the operational context an agent needs to invoke this 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, describing all six parameters including their types and purposes. The description adds no extra meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 all tasks') and the resource ('for a specific project'), distinguishing it from generic task listing or single-task retrieval. The endpoint mention reinforces the scope.

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 phrase 'for a specific project' implies this is the tool to use when you have a project ID and need all tasks for that project, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'everhour_list_tasks' or provide exclusions. It gives a clear context but no explicit alternatives.

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