get_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention that list_id is optional and defaults to a default list, that include_closed defaults to false, or any behavior about sorting, pagination, or response format. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for an agent.

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 with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but as a concise statement it earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it omits necessary context.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions the list context, leaving the agent to guess about default list behavior, filtering semantics (include_closed, exclude_no_start_date), and return shape. Given the rich context from sibling tools and parameter count, this description is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain what 'デフォルトリスト' (default list) is or how the include_closed flag affects results. The schema carries the full burden, and the description does not conflict.

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 retrieves the list of tasks in a list (Japanese: 'リスト内のタスク一覧を取得します。'). The verb '取得します' (retrieve) and resource 'タスク一覧' (task list) are specific enough. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_task_detail (single task) or search_tasks (search across lists), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 such as get_task_detail, search_tasks, or get_lists. It neither mentions context, exclusions, nor alternative tools, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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