task_find_by_name

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns ALL matching tasks (non-unique names), is safe to call repeatedly, has no side effects, and returns an empty array for zero matches. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose and includes examples, but could be tightened slightly. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains return type (tasks[]) and empty array behavior. It covers side effects and safety. Missing details on pagination or rate limits, but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds two examples and explains the matchMode options (though uses 'matchMode' instead of schema's 'mode', causing minor inconsistency). It does not describe other parameters (limit, caseSensitive) beyond schema, so it adds limited value.

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 tool finds tasks by name in OmniFocus, distinguishing it from siblings like task_get (by ID) and search_query (full-text search). The verb 'find' combined with the resource 'tasks by name' is specific and 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: prefer task_get with an ID, and use search_query for full-text content. Also clarifies behavior (empty array on no matches, no side effects), which helps the agent decide correctly.

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